Support 911Blogger


Shatter the Lies: O'Neill Tells '60 Minutes' Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11

Anyone remember this?

"Long before "9/11 changed everything", former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill reveals that within days of taking office, President Bush was already planning the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam."

Polls continue to show many Americans believe Iraq had something to with the attacks and many people see the Iraq war as a response to 9/11. Paul O'Neill was very clear about the Iraq agenda being rolled out 10 days into the first term.

The following CBS clip really needs to be included on any 9/11 DVD material that is being compiled.

Download Full CBS Report:

http://undergroundclips.com/video/ONeil_on_60min_320.mov

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

-------------------------------------------------------------

Also ABC News:

-------------------------
Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq?
O'Neill Tells '60 Minutes' Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

PNAC Letter to Bill Clinton in 1998

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Thanks...

Do you think they found that way? After all, 9/11 is what was used to sell the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. There was no legitimate reason to invade, and pre-emptively invading a country is no different than what the Nazis did. The other reasons for war? Weapons of Mass Destruction. False. Ties to Al-Qaeda. False. They NEEDED 9/11 as the basis from which to sell us so many lies.


Donate To 9/11 First Responders

Exactly!

Exactly!

Announced invasion of Afghanistan in July 2001

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm

"Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October."

Not only was Iraq premeditated, the invasion of Afghanistan was already green-lighted in JULY 2001 to begin October 2001.

To believe 9/11 was not either known to the Bushies or planned by the Bushies, you would have to believe they're the luckiest administration ever, and that 9/11 was one of the greatest coincidences in foreign policy history.

If you're gonna post it...

You may as well post it with gusto...

July 21, 2001: US Official Threatens Possible Military Action Against Taliban by October if Pipeline Is Not Pursued Niaz Naik.

Three former American officials, Tom Simons (former US Ambassador to Pakistan), Karl Inderfurth (former Deputy Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs), and Lee Coldren (former State Department expert on South Asia) meet with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in a Berlin hotel. [Salon, 9/16/2002] This is the third of a series of back-channel conferences called “brainstorming on Afghanistan.” Taliban representatives sat in on previous meetings, but boycotted this one due to worsening tensions. However, the Pakistani ISI relays information from the meeting to the Taliban. [Guardian, 10/22/2001] At the meeting, Coldren passes on a message from Bush officials. He later says, “I think there was some discussion of the fact that the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action.” [Guardian, 10/26/2001] Accounts vary, but former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik later says he is told by senior American officials at the meeting that military action to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan is planned to “take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.” The goal is to kill or capture both bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar, topple the Taliban regime, and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place. Uzbekistan and Russia would also participate. Naik also says, “It was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taliban.” [BBC, 10/18/2001] One specific threat made at this meeting is that the Taliban can choose between “carpets of bombs” —an invasion—or “carpets of gold” —the pipeline. [Brisard and Dasquie, 2002] Naik contends that Tom Simons made the “carpets” statement. Simons claims, “It’s possible that a mischievous American participant, after several drinks, may have thought it smart to evoke gold carpets and carpet bombs. Even Americans can’t resist the temptation to be mischievous.” Naik and the other American participants deny that the pipeline was an issue at the meeting. [Salon, 9/16/2002]


Donate To 9/11 First Responders

Off Topic

Dave VonKleist has just released a new 9/11 tryth video called "9/11 Ripple Effect.". Check it out here. http://www.thepowermall.com/bookbarn/videos_3.htm#911_Ripple_Effect Someone has already posted it on You Tube in about 9 parts. I have not watched it all but what I have seen is very good. Pods or no pods, VonKleist does excellent work. "9/11 In Plane Site" woke me up. Check it out and see what you think.

Herbert Spencer

"'There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.'" - Herbert Spencer

Bush Admn. Said Year Before 9/11 They Were Going to Invade Iraq

The Bush, Jr. administration state in their own official policy report in September 2000 (i.e., even before the presidential election) their intent to invade Iraq even if Saddam and his regime no longer existed. So this invasion had not the slightest thing in the world to do with Saddam or whatever political system was in operation in that country--the U.S. was going to invade Iraq no matter what.

From pg. 14 of "Rebuilding America's Defenses--Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century: A Report of The Project for the New American Century," Project for the New American Century, September 2000 http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf :

""
While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.
""

And from pg. 17:

""
From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene.
""

Moreover, commenting on what will be needed for the U.S. government in order to take over the Middle East, from pg. 51:

""
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor.
""

Hence, the U.S. government wanted "a new Pearl Harbor" in which to terrorize the U.S. population in order to get them worked up into a war-fervor. And the U.S. government got its desired "new Pearl Harbor" twelve months later. How very fortunate for it.

Below are the June 3, 1997 signers of the Project for the New American Century's Statement of Principles ( http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm ):

Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz

##########

As well, the U.S. government had already been telling other governments well prior to 9/11 that it was planning to invade Afghanistan in October 2001. It's extremely convenient that the 9/11 attacks happened to coincide perfectly with the U.S. government's preplanned schedule to invade Afghanistan while at the same time providing the necessary pretext for such an invasion. See the below (noting in particular the publication dates on the first two articles):

"India joins anti-Taliban coalition," Rahul Bedi, Jane's Intellegence Review, March 15, 2001 http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_...

"India in anti-Taliban military plan," Public Affairs Magazine (Newsinsight.net), June 26, 2001 http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.asp?recno=10

"US 'planned attack on Taleban'," George Arney, BBC, September 18, 2001 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366...

"U.S. sought attack on al-Qaida: White House given plan days before Sept. 11," MSNBC and NBC News, May 16, 2002 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/

As British Prime Minister Tony Blair said on July 16, 2002, "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11."

Oh, really, Tony Blair? Utterly interesting that he should say that, given that the U.S. government was planning well before the 9/11 attacks to invade Afghanistan in October 2001. Obviously the U.S. government was counting on their desired "catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor" (to use their words) coming in right on schedule. For Blair's above quote, see:

"Britain backs US plan for attack on Iraq," Philip Webster, Times (U.K.), July 17, 2002 http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg00976.html

____________
"Terrorism is the health of the State."--James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," June 1, 2006 http://praxeology.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf