The 9-11 tragedy has been in the news recently because of the announcement by the Obama administration that the U.S. would try a handful of 9-11 conspirators in New York City. Hours of quivering-bunny style reporting has been the result of that announcement. As usual, many conservative politicians have been given ample media time to air their objections. When conservatives and Republicans are scared, or say that they are, and in need of diaper changing,….the media is right there documenting each and every wah-wah.
However, when important new news, news of substance and not of silliness, happens….that news is released late Friday night, or in the case for today's post, Thanksgiving Day…..
Thanksgiving Day news release from the AP…
Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice raised the issue of Iraq with the U.K. hours after the Sept. 11 attacks, Britain's former ambassador told an inquiry into the Iraq war Thursday.
Christopher Meyer, who served as then-Prime Minister Tony Blair's envoy to Washington between 1997 and 2003, said he spoke with Rice on Sept. 11, 2001.
"She said there's no doubt this was an Al-Qaida operation, we are just looking to see if there could possibly be any connection with Saddam Hussein," he told the panel.
This is not a small, inconsequential piece of information. Condi Rice, then NSA chief, can now be added to a list of Bush administration officials who, on the very day of 9-11, were calling for a connection of that still smoldering tragedy with Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
Previously known….
CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.
That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 – notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.
The comments are important because they suggest that the United States quickly tied the attacks with Saddam's regime. Years later, President George W. Bush's administration was forced to acknowledge that they could find no connection between Saddam and the attacks.
Rumsfeld, a Medal of Freedom(!) recipient, on 9-11, was presented with indisputable evidence that Bin Laden's al-Qaeda group was responsible for the attacks…..Rumsfeld wasn't having any of it…
At 9:53 a.m., just 15 minutes after the hijacked plane had hit the Pentagon, and while Rumsfeld was still outside helping with the injured, the National Security Agency, which monitors communications worldwide, intercepted a phone call from one of Osama bin Laden's operatives in Afghanistan to a phone number in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia.
The caller said he had "heard good news" and that another target was still to come; an indication he knew another airliner, the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania, was at that very moment zeroing in on Washington.
It was 12:05 p.m. when the director of Central Intelligence told Rumsfeld about the intercepted conversation.Rumsfeld felt it was "vague," that it "might not mean something," and that there was "no good basis for hanging hat." In other words, the evidence was not clear-cut enough to justify military action against bin Laden.
The evidence be damned, according to Rumsfeld on 9-11….he had other plans….
….at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.
"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
What about George W. Bush on 9-11? Who did he want to be the one responsible for the 9-11 attacks? What did Bush tell Richard Clarke, Counterterrorism Chief, on the evening of 9-11?…..
"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.
"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'
"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."
Here's one more tidbit of little-known information from the day of 9-11. Retired General Wesley Clarke got a call on 9-11…..
I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.'
Over 4400 U.S. soldiers have been killed attacking and occupying a country which had nothing, whatsoever, to do with the events of 9-11. The disgraceful fraud that led to these needless deaths began on the day of 9-11. No one from the Bush administration has, or ever will, be held accountable for the reckless deaths of all those American soldiers in the biggest fraud ever perpetrated in America by it's leaders.
I realize all this is not as riveting as conservative diaper-changing wah-wah sessions of wingnuttery over trying 5 guys in New York City……but it's the truth.
It all started on the day of 9-11.
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
No offense, Reverend, but if this early connection was reported in 2002, how does it make it earth shattering news in 2009? I don't see how Condi was "calling for a connection," in any case by stating they were looking into the possibility. It's probable she and the Brit had an ongoing dialogue concerning Iraq at that point in time.
Blog of Mass Disinformation
And why wouldnt our national security adviser ask if other intelligence agencies though Iraq had helped in the 9-11 attacks.
We had proof that they helped AQ in the WTC bombing. So it would be prudent to find out if there was a connection at the time of the 9-11 attack, but then again, you have not studied your history before you go off on your foolish histrionics.
And again, nobody used 9-11 to justify the invasion of Iraq, just ask Hillary Clinton or John Kerry about the information given to them, oh thats right once leftwing nutjob politics entered the area, they began lying, no surprise, Democrats love to lie to us.
1. Iraq continued to be in violation of UN resolutions.
2. SH refused to dis-arm, and would continue to be a threat to the region.
3. SH was converting Iraq to a fundamentalist Islamic nation.
4. SH and AQ had developed a relationship following the 1st gulf war, ever hear "The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend"
5. AQ had approached Iraq about purchasing weapons of mass destruction.
Only fools ignore or try to change the truth, because even in the totalitarian Soviet Union, eventually the truth filters out.
PS. Bill Clintons peace time military had more deaths, than the entire Iraq war, explain that, full combat killed fewer that peace time training. Maybe being a soldier, or just being alive is a dangerous business?
This isn't new news at all, Rev. It's very old news. It's no secret that Bush wanted to know if Saddam was involved.
Maybe it was that video of Saddam cheering and clapping as the towers fell that sparked his interest.
Ah the font of revisionist info that we see here!! Condi Rice wasn't even secretary of state on 9-11,no,that obamamaniac Colin Powell was.Don't let the real facts get in the way.Bolognabrain that you are.Do some more cussing.Wait until next time progressives.What will you tell your children when they figure out the real truth about you all.
What is really insane is many believe that the republicans are the ones to keep us safe . Besides invading a country under false pretenses Tora Bora another example when U.S. had the means to mount a attack and capture Bin Laden . But Rumsfeld and Bush didn't think he was so important at the time their focus was elsewhere. And why ?
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/letters/x1659494414/Rosen-Road-not-taken-in-Afghanistan
"he U.S. is in such a bind in Afghanistan. The road not taken was the Bush administration's egregious lack of focus on the real problem after 9/11 which, of course, was NOT Iraq but getting Bin Laden, whom we almost killed in Tora Bora near the Afghan/Pakistan border to try then to ensure Af-Pak (a nuclear armed Pakistan) security. I believe the order NOT to kill Bin Laden came from the highest echelons of the Bush White House despite the fact that, as testimony indicates, the US had Bin Laden in its cross-hairs. Bush/Cheney chose not to get Bin Laden for a reason. Killing Bin Laden would have made Bush's coveted Iraq War unnecessary. So this treasonous and poisonous policy brings us to our present moment as that administration did what it did and now WE, certainly not the cerebrally inept George W. Bush, have to live with its consequences. The US death toll in Afghanistan mounts and there is a re-emergence of an insurgency in Iraq which our invasion of it produced."
That answers one question Andrea. Now we need to find out why Obama has given the order not to kill his sound-alike, Osama. Cap and Trade no doubt has something to do with it.
Nice conspiracy theory, Andrea, but the way I remember it is that we went into Afghanistan first after Al Qaeda.
It's also pretty interesting that John Kerry's Senate report about Tora Bora is coming out now, right before Obama's Af-Pak speech, when America already knows what happened at Tora Bora, and has known for years. What a coincidence.
When the Dems say jump, y'all always ask 'how high ?'
The conservative choir sings in harmony.
To all those singing the conservative anthem:
Did you have this bit of Condi Rice news before…or is it new? Which?
If it is new….and I would challenge anyone to demonstrate that it isn't….then it has, at the very least, some significance in understanding how America was drug into such a catastrophic and fraud-based, multi-year quaqmire.
I know that reviewing the facts as they accumulate makes neo-conservative types uncomfortable…..but if history has any value, it seems to me, it is found in understanding how mistakes were made in order to prevent making those same mistakes in the future.
Condi Rice was NSA chief on 9-11, not secretary of state. She, undoubtedly, was carrying out the will of Bush/Cheney on 9-11 when she called the Brits to see if Hussein could be implicated in the event.
If Rumsfeld, or Bush, or Condi….singularly….had tried to blame Iraq on the very day of 9-11, that would be one scenario, and not so troubling after the fact. However, that wasn't the case. There was a theme on the day of 9-11 coming out of the Bush White House. That theme was a desire to blame Iraq, no matter what the evidence showed. Less than two years later, that same desire to blame Saddam on the very day of 9-11, led to the most historic case of fraud ever perpetrated against the American people. One trillion dollars, 4400 dead U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi citizens later…..we fit the puzzle pieces together and what is the conservative response? Yawn.
Thank you Andrea for sharing a bit of reality-based information in the comment string.
I can't let this go by….
"We had proof that they helped AQ in the WTC bombing."
"…nobody used 9-11 to justify the invasion of Iraq."
"SH refused to dis-arm, and would continue to be a threat to the region."
"SH was converting Iraq to a fundamentalist Islamic nation."
"SH and AQ had developed a relationship following the 1st gulf war,.."
"AQ had approached Iraq about purchasing weapons of mass destruction."
If you can believe it….the very next line from Jeff is this:
"Only fools ignore or try to change the truth,…"
Self parody is difficult…but our friend Jeff has accomplished it.
Prove one thing I said is false, you cant so you attack the messenger,
but the message is clear, you dont know basic history, and you get your
facts from the Dem talking points fax.
1. Read "THE CONNECTION" before you comment on the fact that Saddam Hussain, accepted and harbored a fugitive from the WTC Bombing, and even kept him in the lap of luxury. In the first pages alone, your argument is blown entirely out of the water, the leaked Fein report to the US Senate Intelligence committee, as reported by a few newspapers.
2. Hillary Clinton said she had read the intellegence and agreed that SH needed to be removed, her husband said the same thing as President, but did nothing (which other than getting a blow job in the oval office was standard proceedure) did she lie then, or was she lying when she tried to get the funding cut for the war. A traitorous act if there ever was one.
I suppose given the same circumstances you would say that going to war with Germany and ousting Hitler was wrong? Because if I remember MY history correctly, we were not attacked by Germany. Even with the German declaration of war, we did not have to engage, since we had this big ass moat in front of us.
Most of you leftjobs think all war is wrong (well at least until it is one started by a leftjob).
History does not lie, only communists like yourself lie about history, worked for Stalin, and Mao, (except for the millions they killed to keep the truth out of the hands of the people). So I would say the first casualty of liberalism is the truth, then justice, then freedom, and finally society itself.
king, tell us again how George Bush defeated the Taliban…I love that story.
Tbomb,
What is the name of the guy who was ELECTED President of Afghanistan,
Kharzia, I guess you are saying he is Taliban?
Are you talking about Karzai?….the pres or the drug smuggler?
Rev says, "The conservative choir sings in harmony."
I didn't say anything conservative, Rev. I just stated some facts, which have no political bias.
Rev asks, "Did you have this bit of Condi Rice news before…or is it new? Which?"
We have known for years and years that Bush wanted to know if Saddam was involved. Because Condi worked at the NSC then (not as Secretary of State), she was making inquiries on behalf of the Bush administration. That makes this news OLD. Very old. It's just a restatement of what Bush wanted to know. How you think the Condi portion of this is anything new is way beyond me.
With Saddaam bluffing about WMDs and at the same time providing haven for Abu Nidal it would be irresponsible for the state department not to investigate any possible ties between world wide terrorist organizations and Iraq at that time.
Go-go neo-cons. It truly is unbelievable.
Rev,
If you want to make non-comments like that, please don't complain about not being able to communicate with me in the future. As I said before, if we can't communicate, it's only because you choose not to.
"We have known for years and years that Bush wanted to know if Saddam was involved. Because Condi worked at the NSC then (not as Secretary of State), she was making inquiries on behalf of the Bush administration. That makes this news OLD."
We did not know that on 9-11 Condi inquired of the Brits about Saddam involvement. We didn't. Proof of something is built brick by brick. This brick was not known until Thanksgiving. You know that, but insist on blurring this new revealed fact with some generalized "we already knew this stuff" diversion.
Many conservatives are still in denial about how and why Iraq came about. King, you are one of these people. That's unfortunate. The way out of that blindness is to evaluate each piece of evidence. Conservatives refuse even to do that.
So how did Iraq come about?
Tell us your version of the truth.
I could use a laugh, Obammys stimulus put me out of work in may, need cheering up
Jeff, you are out of work because……you are Jeff
Tbomb…..I'm laughing with you and not at Jeff.
This may not make you laugh, Jeff….but here's a synopsis…
Iraq came about when Dick Cheney picked himself to be Bush's VP. Foreign policy was set in the fall of 2000. The Iraq maps were at the principles' meetings in Feb. 2001, complete with all the oil reserve locations. In 1998 the PNAC warriors wrote the Iraq war plan….Bush/Cheney carried it out, defrauding the American people in the process, starting in 2001. A non-existent "war on terror" was the lever pulled triggering the fraud.
This has all been transparently clear for 8 years.
You forgot Cheney's staged attack on 9/11, Reverend. It made all the rest possible.
And what about the Illuminati?
Perhaps you are confused, larry. Just saying.
I never said that Cheney "staged" the 9-11 attack.
And isn't the Illuminati a new sedan by Infinity?