MISUSING AND ABUSING 9/11 TO JUSTIFY A WAR AGAINST A COUNRTY
THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11
By this point the evidence is absolutely overwhelming that the Al-Queda
attacks on 9/11 became, for the Bush administration, a pretext and
excuse for a war in Iraq that they had long wanted anyway. They knew
full well that a war against Iraq made no sense as a response to 9/11
– but they were to do their damnedest to conflate the two in
the minds of the American public.
For example,
on 9/11 itself, Donald Rumsfeld wrote the following note:
“Go
massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not. Judge
if good enough to go after S.H., [Saddam Hussein], not just U.B.L.
[Usama Bin Laden]
(www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories
emphasis added)
The desire
evinced by Rumsfeld’s notes to link the 9/11 attacks to Iraq
is not surprising given several accounts that the Bush Administration
was drawing up plans for an attack on Iraq well before 9/11. Theses
include accounts by former Treasury Secretary Robert O’Neil,
and other unnamed sources inside the administration. (abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/oneill_charges_040113.html)
Further,
after the 9/11 attacks, counterintelligence expert Richard Clarke
(who had served under Ronald Reagan and Bush, Sr.) stated that he
was pressured by the President to find a connection between Iraq and
Al-Queda. As reported by CNN (among other news outlets) CNN, Clarke
stated:
"Now
[the President] 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,"
When
Clarke told Bush that U.S. intelligence had nothing connecting Iraq
with al Qaeda, he said the president responded in a "very intimidating"
manner: "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection."
Further
still, and absolutely incredibly, Rumsfeld, one day after the attacks,
pressured Clarke to go after Iraq rather than merely Afghanistan,
because, by Rumsfeld’s reasoning, though the evidence pointed
to al Qaeda and Afghanistan, "there aren't any good targets in
Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq" –
as though the presence of “good targets” should determine
who America strikes, and not the actual and proper identification
of the enemy.
(www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/clarke.bush/index.html
)
COMMITTING
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE BY THREATENING THE LIFE OF AN UNDERCOVER CIA
AGENT JUST TO INTIMIDATE A CRITIC OF THE PRESIDENT.
The outing
of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame, for the sole purpose of
intimidation her husband and critic of the Administration Joseph Wilson,
is perhaps both the most underreported and also most egregious offenses
of the whole Bush gang.
On July
6, 2003, the New York Times published an article by former U.S. ambassador
Joseph Wilson charging that President Bush, in his 2003 State of the
Union address, had misled the American people regarding Iraq’s
supposed nuclear program.
Just
about a week later, the Bush Administration leaked the name of Joseph
Wilson’s wife, undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame, to reporter
Robert Novak – a leak which subsequently spread to the rest
of the press. The leak could easily have put Ms. Plame’s life
in jeopardy, and even the lives of others.
(see, e.g., http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20031010.html
)
Especially
despicable here is the very strong possibility that the Bush Administration
leaked Plame’s name to send a message to its critics –
“Hey, criticize us and we’ll threaten your wife!!!!!”
This
kind of behavior sounds more like the behavior of a gangster organization
than a Presidential Administration. At the very least, it is a criminal
act and anyone responsible should be prosecuted to the fullest extent
of the law.