Will Dems use new BBC info that Bush played the fool as Osama wanted Iraq War?

[papau]

Staying in Iraq seems even more stupid now that we know that our attack on Iraq was a goal of al-Qaeda planned By Osama for years. Will the Dems use this new evidence that the GOP are the party of the Terrorists, doing their bidding, advancing their objectives? Will we request that all GOP be arrested and held without trial as enemy combatants, as they were the ones that helped Osama get his wished for war in Iraq?

Will the Dems get the US media to broadcast/print how staying in Iraq until whatever is both the GOP and al-Qaeda objective?

================================================================
http://www.worldnewstrust.com/index.php?option=com_mamblog&Itemid=356&task=show&action=view&id=629&Itemid=356

Evidence Osama Wanted War In Iraq, And Bush Was Played The Fool By Bin Laden

Nov. 18, 2006 -- The New York Times allowed its Media section to publish an article Oct. 2, 2006, that discussed a new book that was soon to be published by Basic Books called “Inside the Jihad: My Life with Al Qaeda, A Spy’s Story,” by Omar Nasiri.

This first-person narrative of Mr. Nasiri’s time in an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan in the 1990s, followed by a stint as a spy for a Western intelligence service, included the bombshell information that al-Qaeda had planned to trick the United States into attacking Iraq so as to have a convenient battlefield and to have a cause that would increase recruitment.

<snip>

[no_hypocrisy]

1. l-Qaeda had planned to trick the United States into attacking Iraq . . .

Here's the rub with that contention: On Inauguration Day, *'s "brother", President William Jefferson Clinton, tried to warn him that the most dangerous entity to monitor was Osama Bin-Laden in Afghanistan, but he was summarily rebuffed with the response of "No, we're going into Iraq."

[papau]

3. True Bush would not accept the warning - then went on to Iraq using

whatever excuse life gave him - in this case 911 and terrorists and those CIA interrogations.

[jpwhite]

2. maybe, but they still wanted to go in

I give this story some credibility. I still believe that Bush 43 wanted to go into Iraq either before 9/11 or shortly after. This was about getting Saddam out of power. Many people thought that we should have taken him out during Desert Storm. I also believe that this is about trying to change the Middle East by changing one country and making it into a democratic nation.

If Al-Qaeda did this stuff it still takes the decision of a president to say yes to going in. Saying Al-Qaeda duped us in to going into Iraq is like saying that you can throw a steak into a pit of lions and claim that you tricked the lions into eating the meat. They wanted to anyway.

James
[e-mail]

[papau]

4. LOL - "tricking the lions into eating the meat" - an excellent point! n/t

n/t

[papau]

5. BBC on how Bush played the fool by Osama who wanted US to attack Iraq -Dems say?

The New York Times allowed its Media section to publish on October 2, 2006 an article that discussed a new book that was soon to be published by Basic Books http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/business/media/02qaeda.html?ei=5088&en=5602aa33d340e8ac&ex=1317441600&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1163905306-gCWEf6Y+BT0zlgGlrZ2m0A called “Inside the Jihad: My Life with Al Qaeda, A Spy’s Story,” by Omar Nasiri. This first-person narrative of Mr. Nasiri’s time in an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan in the 1990’s, followed by a stint as a spy for a Western intelligence service, included the bombshell information that Al Qaeda had planned to trick the US into attacking Iraq so as to have a convenient battlefield and to have a cause that would increase recruitment.

The article said that this book (with this bombshell) was to be discussed by Mr. Nasiri on the BBC’s reward winning television program “Newsnight.” We were informed in the New York Times piece that the publisher had Michael Scheuer, the former head of the Osama bin Laden unit within the Central Intelligence Agency, read the manuscript before publication, plus the publisher had the key facts in the book vetted by members of various European security agencies. Well, the BBC did run the interview – and not one US Media outlet discussed the bombshell thus revealed of Osama actually planning on tricking the US into an attack on Iraq (full Newsnight program that aired on BBC TWO on this topic:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ifs_news/hi/nb_wm_fs.stm?news=1&bbram=1&bbwm=1&nbram=1&nbwm=1&nol_storyid=6156946&checkedBandwidth=nb&checkedMedia=asx&subtitles=hide&alreadySeen=1 and a shorter 4 minute version:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ifs_news/hi/newsid_6150000/newsid_6155900/nb_wm_6155962.stm )

So how hard was it to trick the US into moving against Iraq? Well, it seems al-Qaeda was unable to get the Democrat Clinton to fall for the con job, but that fact, of course, only made the Bush gang, wanting to prove they were the “not-Clinton” administration, an easy dupe for Osama’s plan. It also seems that a CIA head that wanted to please the new President allowed the CIA to be played by their caught Al Qaeda members so that the US would attack a Muslim country.

So who was this Mr. Nasiri? One wonders if the informant discussed by Newsnight on October 26, “al-Libi”, provide information the CIA deemed credible enough to get them to see the value of an attack on Iraq (of course “al-Libi” was reportedly imprisoned in a coffin-dimensioned box (apparently by the CIA), taken out periodically to be torture-interrogated, and later became clinically insane, so who would take seriously any information he planted to get us into Iraq?). Or was one of the sources for the CIA the fellow Jamal al-Fadl who was presented by the CIA to the 9/11 Commission as a "senior employee" of al-Qaeda http://us.geocities.com/libertystrikesback/afghans.html#issue , who, after embezzling $110,000 from the organization, "defected" in 1996 to a life of being in a safe-house where he provided “a major breakthrough of intelligence on the creation, character, direction, and intentions of al Qaeda", selling the idea that Osama wanted weapons-grade uranium. Al-Fadl, was considered so credible by the Bush administration that he became a key witness in the US v. bin Laden trial that began in February 2001.(Some sources: 9/11 Commission Report, chapter 2, p.62 http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.pdf
; (HTML version http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm
; idem, chapter 4 http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.pdf
, p.109 (HTML version http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm
); Jack Cloonan interview, PBS, 13 July 2005 (edited online version) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline//////torture/interviews/cloonan.html
Steve Coll, Ghost Wars, Penguin, 2005 edn, pp.336, 367.)

The BBC TWO program does not discuss just how many informants were used to plant information that tried to get the US to go to war with Iraq. The program does describe the interviewed informant and now book author and TV subject as an al Qaeda operative who also worked for European security agencies during the 1990s, infiltrating al-Qaeda both in the camps of Afghanistan and in terror cells in London. I wonder if anyone in the media will read the book to find out the details.

I wonder if any Dem will point out that there is now evidence Bush was played for the fool by Osama, making the 2004 Osama tape just before the election seem like an attempt to get Osama’s boy Bush re-elected? Or that Bush and the GOP that supported him were Osama’s favored US politicians – and how unhappy Osama must feel about the Democrats taking control of the Congress?

Indeed this makes getting out of Iraq the one thing Osama does not want us to do. - Will the Dems point this out?