Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: When Truth Tried to Stop War [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)68. This war on terrorism is bogus
Wisdom from across the pond, 2003:
The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination
Michael Meacher
The Guardian, Saturday 6 September 2003 07.15 EDT
Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
SNIP...
Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways.
First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.
It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".
Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).
Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).
CONTINUED...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/06/september11.iraq
That was less than two years after September 11. What we've seen since then is nothing but lies and policies that only create more enemies for the United States and more profits for the war mongers who run the government.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
82 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

Joe Wilson also provided information their reasons for invafing Itaq was false and his reward
Thinkingabout
Feb 2013
#1
It was Geirge W Bush with the final decision, the ones you listed authorized action
Thinkingabout
Feb 2013
#5
Well of course it was shrub, that's not the point. Without these traitors siding with
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#10
I read the names, the point I was trying to make to you it would have happened without the support
Thinkingabout
Feb 2013
#11
That's simply not true. Go look at the records, there were quite a few republicans that opposed
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#12
There was nothing wrong with the Democratic vote on IWR. As I explain in my post below. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#14
Yes, there was. Apparently revising history is not the sole purview of the republicans. n/t
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#17
Go ahead and explain away my response then because you have to revise history to be correct. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#19
And here's another republican strategy, accuse your opponent of doing what you're doing.
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#23
You just revised the Iraq War Resolution below. So I would say you just did the GOP tactic. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#24
Of course you would. It doesn't change the record. Without the votes of those DINOs the act
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#25
You keep trying to pretend facts away, it doesn't work. Deal with the facts or admit defeat.
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#27
Every one of them shows that without the Senate vote the acts fails and the rest
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#34
It was a clear as day then what the IWR was about and no amount of obfuscation changes that.
Comrade Grumpy
Feb 2013
#45
I am in favor of the OP, and as I said, cite something that disagrees with me and the article.
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#39
Go push your blog somewhere else. You're not the first, nor will you be the
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#40
OpEdNews is not my blog. Let's count how many times you have been wrong or ignored facts
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#41
Think about how illogical that statement is. The provisions in the IWR were not met.
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#53
I stand on my previous call outs of your inaccuracies and bad faith efforts. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#54
Of course you do. But it still doesn't change the fact that Democratic Senators
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#64
The republicans were a foregone conclusion, only one of them voted against.
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#52
Fact matter, and they are not on your side. Here it is real easy and simple
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#18
Just as I thought, you are revising history to make your point. Exactly what you accused me of doing
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#22
Things were not clear to lots of folks including a majority of the UN Sec Council Nations
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#28
And as regards the bombing, there were many such escalations, like Operation Desert Fox and
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#58
It was clear at the time what the IWR was...a free ticket for Bush to go to war.
Comrade Grumpy
Feb 2013
#47
Political ambrition trumps the truth every time. Not to mention money.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Feb 2013
#31
The archive.org article did make a factual error. Prescott Bush was George H.W. daddy not....
LongTomH
Feb 2013
#80
The Lies that Led to the Iraq War and the Persistant Myth of 'Intelligence Failure'
Octafish
Feb 2013
#76