The Post-911 Bush/Cheney Commission Interview Summary Declassified

[bknight]

You know paloalto I have a question for you, since you have read all the document seems like you concentrate the views you think are pointing to your thoughts that the CIA/FBI/Executive were negligent in stopping the terrorist attacks. Now the DOJ put all this together and just how many indictments came from these discoveries? Seems like the weight of evidence do not support your beliefs. And don't think for a minute that if the Obama administration half believed what you say they would have pushed the DOJ for criminal proceedings. Especially if it would involve chastising the Republicans in public. But alas they didn't.

 

[Allen773]

But what is even worse is the fact that the CIA and FBI HQ knew on August 22, 2000, that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside the US to take part in a massive al Qaeda terrorist attack that would murder large numbers of Americans

How do you know that they knew this?

Both the CIA and FBI HQ knew that thousands of Americans would be killed if they did not give the information that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing to the FBI Cole bombing investigators

Again, how do you know that they knew this?

 

[Allen773]

Let's go through this, shall we?

...

DOJ IG P. 178

After the first airplane hit, Martin tried to call Minneapolis ASAC Charles but reached Rowley instead. According to Rowley, she told Martin that it was essential to get a criminal search warrant for Moussaoui's belongings.

OK, already the first four words here are extremely important context. When the initial news broke of a plane crashing into the World Trade Center, a lot of people--probably most people-- assumed it was some kind of horrible accident. The assumption was NOT necessarily any kind of terrorist attack, let alone that there would be more attacks that morning.

Rowley said that Martin instructed her that Minneapolis should not take any action without FBI Headquarters approval because it could have an impact on matters of which she was not aware.

Has anyone else corroborated this? Specifically the bolded line. Otherwise it's just Rowley's word. Factually speaking this information adds nothing.

In her May 20, 2002, letter to the FBI Director, Rowley wrote that in this conversation with Martin she had said "in light of what just happened in New York, it would have to be the 'hugest coincidence' at this point if Moussaoui was not involved with the terrorists."

Again, was this before or after the second plane hit? Martin called Minneapolis HQ after the first plane hit, but we don't know whether Rowley said the above to Martin after the second plane hit.

Rowley wrote that Martin replied "something to the effect that I had used the right term 'coincidence' and that this was probably all just a coincidence." Rowley told the OIG that she agreed to follow Martin's directive not to immediately seek a criminal warrant, and she was told that FBI Headquarters would call her back.

Martin told the OIG that he recalled that there was a lot of confusion when he spoke to Rowley. Martin said that he did not recall making the statement about a coincidence to Rowley.

The statement about "a lot of confusion" in the intial aftermath of WTC1 being hit rings true to me. As for the "coincidence" statement, it's Martin's word vs. Rowley's here.

He explained to the OIG that he did not feel comfortable giving legal advice about seeking a criminal warrant, so he went to the NSLU attorney who we call Tim, who advised that the Minneapolis FBI should seek the criminal search warrant.

I don't see an inherent problem with Martin's actions here. As an American who cares about constitutionally protected civil liberties I'd much rather have law enforcement cross all their t's and dot all their i's when seeking a criminal warrant.

This is incredible. Martin, aka Michael Maltbie, told Rowley that even after the WTC towers had been attacked by aircraft, he was not going to recommend Rowley get a criminal warrant for Moussaoui's possessions.

No, this is after one WTC tower had been hit by an aircraft. No one immediately knew whether it was a terrorist attack, let alone an ongoing one, let alone one that Moussaoui was linked to.

You are being dishonest in your framing of what's in this report. We can all see it.

Small wonder he can't remember that his actions had allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to murder approximately 3000 people.

Absolutely inflammatory accusations here, with no hard evidence to back them up.

DOJ IG report, p. 178

While Rowley was waiting for a return call from FBI Headquarters, Minneapolis ASAC Charles was on the telephone with Don. Because Acting SAC Roy was out of the office, Charles was responsible for the Minneapolis office and had called FBI Headquarters immediately after the first airplane hit the World Trade Center. Charles had reached Don and asked him for permission to seek a criminal search warrant for Moussaoui's belongings.
According to Charles, Don responded that he still did not believe that there was enough evidence to support a criminal search warrant. Charles stated that, during the course of this conversation the Pentagon was hit by another hijacked airplane, and that Don then told Charles to go to the USAO for a criminal warrant.

Don confirmed that he spoke to Charles on the morning of September 11. He asserted that he immediately told Charles that the Minneapolis FBI could
seek a criminal warrant.

Again, one person's word against another's.

DOJ IG Report, p. 189

From our review, early on the RFU appears to have discounted the concerns of the Minneapolis FBI about Moussaoui. Don and Martin believed that Minneapolis was overreacting and couching facts in an "inflammatory" way to get people "spun up" about someone who was only "suspected" of being a terrorist. The RFU downplayed and undersold the field office's concerns about Moussaoui, even writing "that there is no indication that either [Moussaoui or Al-Attas] had plans for nefarious activity."

Let's see. Moussaoui's flight instructor for his Boeing 747 training told the FBI that they were sure he was a terrorist trying to take flight training to hijack this type of aircraft. Minneapolis FBI criminal agents, after interviewing Moussaoui, also thought he was a terrorist who was getting Boeing 747 training without even having a private pilot's license to get control of an airplane to crash it into the [World Trade Center]. Al-Attas even told the FBI that Moussaoui was an Islamic extremist who told him he could easily get 4-inch knives onto a commercial airplane.

FBI HQ was wrong. No argument from me on that. But you're arguing this was intentional and that further, they knew that their actions would lead to mass loss of life on US soil in an al-Qaeda terrorist attack. That's an extraordinary claim, and you haven't provided any evidence of it, let alone extraordinary evidence.

DOJ IG Report, p. 189
In response to the Minneapolis FBI's concern that it wanted "to make sure Moussaoui doesn't get control of an airplane to crash it into the [World Trade Center] or something like that," Martin dismissed this possibility, stating "You have a guy interested in this type of aircraft. That is it."

As we discuss below, we believe that the RFU did not fully consider with an open mind the evidence against Moussaoui and examine in a collaborative fashion with Minneapolis how to best pursue its investigation. Rather, it quickly and inappropriately dismissed Minneapolis' information as incomplete and its concerns as fair-fetched.

In other words, a failure of imagination combined with an overly cautious approach. That's not criminal malfeasance at all. Learn the difference.

The post you refer to is typical of the FBI HQ agents after the attacks on 9/11. They all had amnesia. This also shows that the DOJ IG would put erroneous testimony in this report even when they knew it was false. This report largely details the testimony of the agents and managers who had deliberately allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

Again with the inflammatory and extraordinary claims. Where's the ACTUAL evidence?

DOJ IG report 179

Moussaoui's belongings did not reveal anything that specifically provided a warning or an indication of an imminent terrorist attack. There were no plans, correspondence, or names or addresses in his computer or notebooks that linked him directly to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Oh no. How did they ever prosecute him?

Wait for it...

However, information was obtained in the search that, through further traces, was used by the government to indict Moussaoui for conspiring in the September 11 terrorist plot.

Ah. There we go.

However, at the Moussaoui trial, just before the release of the unredacted DOJ IG report, FBI SA Harry Samit, lead investigator on this investigation, said once they got the warrant and got into Moussaoui’s duffel bag, they found the receipt from Ramzi bin al-Shehab to Moussaoui, traced that back to his apartment at 54 Marienstrasse, and his three prior roommates, Mohammed Atta, Marwan Al Shehhi, and Ziad Jarrah, and then to the rest of the terrorists in a few days. This renders this whole report a complete fraud. There is no way the DOJ IG Glenn Fine did not know who the lead investigator was on the Moussaoui investigation and could not have asked him about his search of the duffel bag.

Let me repeat, this renders the whole FBI IG report a a complete fraud.

Then why are you quoting so much from it to support your extraordinary accusations? Make up your mind.

...

I won't bother with the CIA-FBI Hazmi-Midhar fiasco and controversy because it's been relitigated so many times without any evidence of actual malfeasance on anyone's part in either the CIA or the FBI.

This is a very simple question, just answer this one question !Explain why the CIA allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to murder the 3000 people killed on 9/11

Right after you explain at what point you stopped beating your wife.

Again, absolutely inflammatory emotion-leaden accusations with no hard evidence to back them up.

 

[Axxman300]

au contraire

First, there was lots new.

Nope.

The fact that this interview has been kept secret for 22 years is new information. And even the interview itself has new information.

Nope. And what?

Bush claims that the information he was given was for an al Qaeda terrorist attack that was to take place overseas. This excuse does not even pass the smell test.

And yet it's the truth. The FBI were investigating a number of individual actions that they didn't know were related, and only put it all together after the attacks. This is a flaw with the FBI, they're decentralized meaning the NYC office has no idea what the Boston office is doing, and so on.

There is absolutely no credible evidence the CIA ever thought the attacks they were warned about since April 2001 were going to take place overseas.

When you say the CIA, do you mean Alec Station, or the Langley Counter Terrorism unit? The reason I ask is Alec Station was pretty sure an internal attack was in the works but had no details. They never passed this information along to the Counter Terror unit at Langley, who were tracking down Al Qaeda's next foreign target. You need to be specific, unless you are unaware that the CIA's Alec Station didn't share much information with the in-house CT unit. And to date there has been no credible evidence the CIA had solid evidence of a specific airborne attack.

I will say this again: In May 2001 the DoD closed public access to all US Military Bases in CONUS. Their reason being a potential terrorist attack. So somebody in the US government saw some kind of intelligence that concerned them enough to close off our military installations. Yet you and other "experts" have yet to produce the intelligence behind this move, which smart investigators would do since it would have to be significant to initiate spending of gates, fences, and upgrades in physical security measures.

But no, it's all CIA all the time with you.

CIA said that they had given Busk unambiguous warnings of an al Qaeda terrorist attack 40 times, and yet he did absolutely nothing to stop this attack. So now we know why this interview had been kept secret for 22 years.

Wow, 40 times. And you have these briefing memos, right. You can post links to all 40, right?

If this interview had come out when the 9/11 Commission was written, everyone would have wanted to know whether the CIA committed treason by giving the president wrong information or had the president deliberately done nothing to prevent the attacks on 9/11 and allowed the terrorists to kill all of the people killed on 9/11 when he had unambiguous information a massive al Qaeda terrorist attack was about to take place inside the US.

No, just the crazy people would think that. Had this not been secret in 2004, most people would still remember the zoo that was the Clinton White House, and the circus that shrouded the CIA and FBI between 1993 and 2001. You either don't recall, or just don't know about the 1990s.

Again, now know why this interview had been kept secret for 22 years.

They explained why it was redacted when the commission report was published. I guess you missed that part too.

Here's the thing, just about everyone who was paying attention in 2001 knew it was only a matter of time before Al Qaeda pulled off some kind of attach inside the US. We knew this because THEY TOLD US THEY WERE COMING.

Duh.

So sure, Bush and his NSA crapped the bed on Al Qaeda before 9-11-2001. While conspiracy crowd flipped out about 9-11, and ran in circles with stupid theories about what really happened, the rest of us were more concerned about the Bush White House continuing to crap the bed on Al Qaeda in every tactical, and strategic way possible. I won't waste time and space listing their failures post 9-11, but I need to point out that you need to learn to read better, and expand your source material because you are late to the game in every ascpet of this subject.

 

[Allen773]

I love this idea that the CIA would deliberately withhold specific threat information about al-Qaeda (or any other threat to national security) from Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, George W. Bush, Condi Rice, or any of the other people in either of those administrations who received the President’s Daily Brief (PDB).

A great way for an executive branch agency or department to make themselves irrelevant is for its leadership to not brief senior policymakers—in this case, the President and the NSC. That happened early in Bill Clinton’s administration with his first CIA Director James Woolsey (though not for lack of trying on Woolsey’s part) but by the late 90s George Tenet was Director and he and CIA analysts were briefing Clinton, Berger, Al Gore, and others on a regular basis, and Tenet was personally helping to brief George W. Bush every day from the beginning of his Presidency on the recommendation of Bush’s father (who had been CIA Director himself, back in the 70s).

The information about Midhar and Hazmi got stovepiped at ALEC Station/within the Counterterrorism Center, and that was obviously improperly done and with hindsight (key word being hindsight) looks really terrible because we know what happened on 9/11/01, but 23 years later there’s still not a SHRED of evidence that there was any malignant “LIHOP”/CIA conspiracy whatsoever. But I suppose conspiracy theorists will never stop promoting their fantastical nonsense, if the JFK assassination is any guide (it’s been over 60 years now and still: no conspiracy, just Lee Harvey Oswald and a Carcano rifle).

 

[paloalto]

How do you know that they knew this?



Again, how do you know that they knew this?

How did they know this? They both stated they knew this in their testimony at the April 14, 2014 public hearings the 9/11 Commission hearings. In addition both agencies admitted at this meeting that they knew an al Qaeda terrorist attack was going take place since April 2001, most likely aimed at a target inside the US, an attack that would result in mass civilian casualties. According to Tenet’s own book, when he asked at a meeting in the last week of February 2001, exactly where this attack was going to take place, Richard Blee stated, “They are coming here.”

 

[paloalto]

I love this idea that the CIA would deliberately withhold specific threat information about al-Qaeda (or any other threat to national security) from Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, George W. Bush, Condi Rice, or any of the other people in either of those administrations who received the President’s Daily Brief (PDB).

A great way for an executive branch agency or department to make themselves irrelevant is for its leadership to not brief senior policymakers—in this case, the President and the NSC. That happened early in Bill Clinton’s administration with his first CIA Director James Woolsey (though not for lack of trying on Woolsey’s part) but by the late 90s George Tenet was Director and he and CIA analysts were briefing Clinton, Berger, Al Gore, and others on a regular basis, and Tenet was personally helping to brief George W. Bush every day from the beginning of his Presidency on the recommendation of Bush’s father (who had been CIA Director himself, back in the 70s).

The information about Midhar and Hazmi got stovepiped at ALEC Station/within the Counterterrorism Center, and that was obviously improperly done and with hindsight (key word being hindsight) looks really terrible because we know what happened on 9/11/01, but 23 years later there’s still not a SHRED of evidence that there was any malignant “LIHOP”/CIA conspiracy whatsoever. But I suppose conspiracy theorists will never stop promoting their fantastical nonsense, if the JFK assassination is any guide (it’s been over 60 years now and still: no conspiracy, just Lee Harvey Oswald and a Carcano rifle).

REPLY:

Just when you thought posts in this forum could not get any more stupid, you get “there is not a shred of evidence that there was any malignant “LIHOP”/CIA conspiracy what so ever. This is more of the “They were just much too stupid defense.”

The FBIHQ knew on August 21, 2001, that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside the US, and the CIA was given this information by FBIHQ on August 22, 2001. Both agencies not only knew a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was aimed at a target inside the US, but also were aware from the email from FBIHQ Deputy Chief Tom Wilshere on July 23, 2001, that Mihdhar would be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda attack. So what did the CIA do with this information. Did they try to notify anyone who would stop this attack. NO THEY DID NOT! And what did FBIHQ do with this information? They shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongradt’s criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, when they even knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing, an attack that had murdered 17 US sailors. This fact alone meant that FBIHQ had no legal right to shut down Bongardt’s investigation.

At the time the CIA and FBIHQ were aware Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside the US and knew they were here to take part in a massive al Qaeada terrorist attack, both agencies were aware of exactly what flights these terrorists had used to enter the US and could have used that information to have quickly obtained their credit card numbers. This is three weeks prior to 9/11 and more than enough time for Bongardt to have found these terrorists prior to the attacks on 9/11. Three weeks later the credit cards of Mihdhar and Hazmi had been used in their own names to buy airline tickets of 10 of the terrorists who took part in 9/11.

 

[Allen773]

Nice to see you again. Still at it with the usual?

 

[Axxman300]

REPLY:

Just when you thought posts in this forum could not get any more stupid, you get “there is not a shred of evidence that there was any malignant “LIHOP”/CIA conspiracy what so ever. This is more of the “They were just much too stupid defense.”

The FBIHQ knew on August 21, 2001, that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside the US, and the CIA was given this information by FBIHQ on August 22, 2001. ...[blah,blah,blah]

You overstate and fill in gaps with inuendo as per usual.

From the FBI IG:


https://oig.justice.gov/sites/defau... discuss below, it,remain until July 14, 2000.

The fifth and final opportunity for the FBI to locate Mihdhar and Hazmi occurred in late August 2001, when it was informed that Mihdhar and Hazmi had traveled to the United States. The FBI learned in August 2001 that Mihdhar had entered the United States in July 2001 and that Mihdhar and Hazmi had previously traveled together to the United States in January 2000. On August 29, the FBI began an investigation to locate Mihdhar, but it did not assign great urgency or priority to the investigation. The New York FBI criminal agents who wanted to participate in the investigation were specifically prohibited from doing so because of concerns about the wall and the procedures to keep criminal and intelligence investigations separate. The FBI did not locate Mihdhar before the September 11 attacks.

And this is a key fact:

To expedite the investigative process and provide a “heads up [alert]” to the New York Field Office that the information was coming, on August 23 Donna telephoned an agent on the Bin Laden squad in the New York Field Office who we call “Chad.” To comply with the wall, the New York Field Office had designated agents as either “criminal” or “intelligence,” and Chad was an intelligence agent. Donna discussed with Chad Mihdhar’s most recent entry into the United States and FBI Headquarters’ request for the New York office to open a full field intelligence investigation to locate Mihdhar. Donna told the OIG that she did not normally telephonically contact the field on these types of issues, but there was some urgency to her request because the FBI did not want to lose the opportunity to locate Mihdhar before he left the United States. [INFORMATION REDACTED]

Chad told the OIG that although he routinely worked with Donna, this was the first time that Donna had relayed a need for urgency in an intelligence investigation. Chad told us, however, that he questioned both the urgency and the need for a separate intelligence investigation. Chad explained that the attempt to locate Mihdhar seemed to relate to the criminal investigation of the Cole attack, and efforts to locate an individual normally would be handled through a sub-file to the main investigation and not as a separate full field investigation. Nevertheless, he told Donna that New York would open an intelligence investigation.

The FBI dropped the ball because of their internal policies separating criminal and intelligence related issues. They didn't understand the threat, not in a real way. Neither did the CIA. Both the FBI and CIA had allowed bin Laden units to be spun up and run OUTSIDE of their counter-terrorism units mostly because the men leading these units were prima donnas.

But it gets better:

The EC, entitled “Khalid M. Al-Mihdhar” with various aliases, stated in the synopsis, “Request to open an intelligence investigation.” The EC outlined Mihdhar’s travel to the United States in July 2001, his previous travel to the United States with Hazmi in January 2000, the background on and his attendance at the Malaysia meetings, [INFORMATION REDACTED]. As to the identification of Khallad in the [INFORMATION REDACTED] by the source, Donna told the OIG that she did not include this information because it had not yet been officially passed to the FBI, although she had requested the passage from a CTC Representative to the FBI.180

While Donna had relayed urgency to opening the investigation in her telephone conversation with Chad and in her cover e-mail, she designated the EC precedence as “routine,” the lowest precedence level.181 She explained this by saying this case was “no bigger” than any other intelligence case. She also told us, however, that there was a time consideration because Mihdhar could be leaving the United States at any time and that is why she had personally contacted Chad

.

You're applying a post-911 mindset to a pre-911 FBI.

I'll let you in on a secret, there is a serious threat of a large scale terrorist strike within the US within the next few months. All the same sources who were publicly telling Americans to be on guard in 2001 are telling everyone who will listen about this new threat. 2024 would be a perfect year too, The FBI is on its heels taking heat from the MAGA GOP, the CIA is spread thin between the GWOT, Russia, China, and Central America. I wasn't active on the internet in 2001, but I am now. I just told anyone reading this to stay alert. No idea what kind of attack, or where, or which organization (ISIS, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, someone else). And with all things intel-related, there's a 50% chance this information is wrong...just like August, 2001.

 

[bknight]

let us hope that the intel is upgraded to more than 50% so that maybe an act might be prevented.

 

[Fonebone]

Originally Posted by Axxman300
You need to remember,
the Iraq War happened because of 9-11 Trutherism.

To not "remember"
exposes one to the dangers of acute epiphanies
followed by severe bouts of chronic mentation.

...On March 2nd of 2007 on a nationally broadcast radio show
"Democracy Now" the show host, Amy Goodman, interviewed
a retired U.S.Army four star general Wesley Clark before a live audience
in New York City USA
https://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-...udan-Iran/5166
[excerpts]
General to retired four star General Wesley Clark...

SIR! “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.”
--and--
...I said,
“Are we still going to war with Iraq?”
And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.”
He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper.
And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.”
And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years,
starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”
I said, “Is it classified?”
He said, “Yes, sir.”
I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.”
And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo!
I didn’t show it to you!”[/excerpt]

Quote:axxman
The Bush NSC were the first Truthers

.
Fonebone< Absolute unmitigated Flap doodle'

Quote: axxman
This is the irony of the 9-11 Truth "movement", Truthers chicken hawks,war mongers,neocons and boil suckers in the Bush NSC ran with half-truths, cherry-picked intelligence, and fabricated claims to justify the invasion.




Fonebone < FTfY



Fonebonme < I think you owe the good General Wesley Clark an apology
for insulting his integrity. Bic?

The last domino is about to fall. "seven countries in five years"
Amy Goodman interviews four star General Wesley Clark...

https://youtu.be/bSL3JqorkdU

 

[Cosmic Yak]

fonebone- your appaling formatting makes your post all but incomprehensible. It's really not that difficult. If you want any kind of conversation here, sort yourself out.
Biro?

 

[Axxman300]

To not "remember"
exposes one to the dangers of acute epiphanies
followed by severe bouts of chronic mentation.

...On March 2nd of 2007 on a nationally broadcast radio show
"Democracy Now" the show host, Amy Goodman, interviewed
a retired U.S.Army four star general Wesley Clark before a live audience
in New York City USA

Yeah, some other Truther nut-job posted this years ago. Here's the thing, Uncle Wesley was hack. A third-rate general officer who advanced through the ranks on aspects other than merit. He was a ticket-puncher. I knew the guy who was his driver at NTC. The guy would step out of his Humvee and sand there until the driver came around and draped his LCE on his shoulders like he was Ceasar. You can hunt down a National Geographic documentary on NTC that features him. All the other (good) officers are wearing dusty uniforms, but not Uncle Wesley. No, he's in his spotless BDUs with the starched creases. Oh, and then there was the time during Kosovo when he ordered the British Paras to jump on a Serb airfield to seize Mig-29s in spite of the fact that Russian paratroopers had already deployed to the same airfield to protect said Migs. Clark could have started WWIII had it not been for the British telling him to bugger off. Uncle Wesley was relieved of command not long after this.

But sure, he's a great source of information. Let's go through it...

SIR! “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.”
--and--
...I said,
“Are we still going to war with Iraq?”
And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.”
He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper.
And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.”

The Bush NSC was looking at Iraq on September 12, 2001 even though the CIA, and every foreign intelligence service had correctly identified Al Qaeda as being the lone actor behind the attacks. They had started talking about Iraq in the summer of 2001, and Bush Sr. and his former NSC crew met with W and his NSC out at Camp David to tell them to knock off the Iraq crap. Something anyone familiar with 9/11, or basic recent history would know, or could easily look up as long as they don't have mental issues. So Uncle Wesley's revelation is no revelation to anyone who had cable TV, watched 60 Minutes interviews with the other "Clark" who revealed the SecDef was looking at Iraq on Wednesday, September 12, 2001.

And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years,
starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” [/FONT][/COLOR]
I said, “Is it classified?”
He said, “Yes, sir.”
I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.”
And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo!
I didn’t show it to you!”[/excerpt]

Well, golly. Where is that memo now? It's been 22 years, it should be declassified, so let's see it. You have a copy, or a link to it in the National Archives, or the GW Bush Library, right?

I'm guessing you don't.

Anyway, here's why this part is BS. First, we had plenty of good reasons to bomb the crap out of Syria during OIF and we didn't. Even today, the last time I checked, Assad is still running the show while we have forces on the east side of the Euphrates River, and the Russians are on the other side while we fight ISIS.

Lebanon is a western asset, I mean don't tell anybody, but they really hate Hezbollah, and have been hoping we'd take care of their rodent problem. There's a reason Israel has wiped out their leadership so damned fast, and it's not because Mossad is that good. But I digress, We went to Lebanon once, a bunch of Marines got murdered, and the Bekaa Valley makes Afghanistan look like Disney World as far as local militias you don't want to mess with.

Somalia asked for our help in 2002, and we've been active there for 22 years. But we haven't overthrown anything, or stood up a government, and there are still terrorists there, and we still kill them when we find them. The War on Terror is fun that way.

Lybia? After we invaded Iraq the good Colonel surrendered his chemical weapons facilities, and turned over a new leaf. He was fine until the Arab Spring, which happened after Bush was out of office. And yes, the US, UK, and other countries helped overthrow the guy, and it was a mistake, but it wasn't in the plans in 2001.

If you can show me where we've attacked the Sudan since 2001 I'd love to see that.

And we're still in no hurry to deal with Iran. So Wesley Clark, if he actually said any of this, was full of high grade crapola. And I need to point out that if such a memo existed it would have also mentioned the Philippines, and Indonesia because those are places we conducted counter terror operations along side the local SOF forces. We lost an MH-47 in the Philippines along with their crew, yet Uncle Wesley didn't mention that.

.

Fonebone< Absolute unmitigated Flap doodle'

If the tinfoil hat fits...

I think you owe the good General Wesley Clark an apology
for insulting his integrity. Bic?

The last domino is about to fall. "seven countries in five years"
Amy Goodman interviews four star General Wesley Clark...

He has no integrity to insult.

Let's recap:

Al Qaeda did 9/11.

The next day, according to Richard Clark and others, members of the Bush NSC started the ball rolling on an invasion of Iraq while ignoring the mountain of evidence Al Qaeda was responsible. The Bush NSC and their media proxies began floating stories of secret Iraqi bases where simulated passenger liner interiors were built to train the 9/11 hijackers, and this was a reoccurring accusation in the run up to OIF...which you'd know if you were in any way competent in your research abilities.

The US invades Iraq in 2003. I'd say it didn't go as planned but as far as I can tell the US seemed to make it up as they went along, and had no real plan.

Saddam is dead, Gaddafi is dead, Bin Laden is dead, Mullah Omar is dead, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri is dead, thousands of Taliban are dead, thousands of wannabe Jihadists are dead, lots of Iraqis are dead, lots of Kurds are dead, too many Yazidis are dead, and maybe not enough Syrain Baathists are dead.

We're shooting at Houthis now.

The beat goes on.

9/11 Truth has been relegated to the dung heap of history. A pathetic laughing stock made up of delusional narcissists.

 

[bknight]

What he said^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^, not what you said.