Jump to content
The Education Forum


Recommended Posts

PART three


Phoney staged events thought about by G W Bush..... Now the mind set of the 911 POTUS seems to be an evill one ,thus that 911

was staged by DOD/intell services is not farfetched in the slightest. WAR,WAR,WAR,WAR....money$,money$,money$,money$....$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said: "[W]hat we really want to think about is going after Saddam…Imagine what the region would look like without Saddam and with a regime that’s aligned with U.S. interests.".............


From The Times

February 3, 2006

Bush 'tried to lure Saddam into war using UN aircraft'

By Rosemary Bennett and Michael Evans

PRESIDENT BUSH had plans to lure Saddam Hussein into war by flying an aircraft over Iraq painted in UN colours in the hope he would shoot it down, a book reveals.

Mr Bush told Tony Blair of the extraordinary plan during a meeting in the White House on January 31, 2003, six weeks before the war started, according to an updated version of Lawless World by Philippe Sands, a human rights lawyer. He says the President made it clear that he had already decided to go to war, despite still pressing for a UN resolution.

“The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach,” the book reports Mr Bush telling Mr Blair at the meeting.

If the U2 idea was a serious proposal, it would have made sense only if the spy plane was ordered to fly at an altitude within range of Iraqi missiles. Mr Bush’s reference in the recorded conversation to the U2 being escorted by fighter aircraft indicates that that is what he had in mind.

The U2, America’s most sophisticated aerial reconnaissance aircraft, can operate at 90,000ft, taking high-resolution photographs of targets. At this altitude, the U2 would have been beyond the range of Iraqi surface-to-air missiles.

U2s were made available to the UN weapons inspectors to help them in their search for Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD). But there has never been any suggestion until now that Mr Bush had thought about painting one of them in UN colours to deceive Saddam.

Later in the same meeting the President said it was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddam’s WMD, and there was a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated.

The book also claims that the President “thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups”.

President Bush also made clear, according to the book which was featured on Channel 4 News, that he would go to war irrespective of whether there was a second UN resolution.

“The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would ‘twist arms’ and ‘even threaten’. But he had to say that if, ultimately, we failed, military action would follow anyway,” the book said.

The section of the book is based on a memo of the meeting. Mr Blair responded that he was “solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam”. But the Prime Minister said that a second Security Council resolution would provide an insurance policy against the unexpected, and international cover, including with the Arabs.

Mr Sands’ book says that the meeting focused on the need to identify evidence that Saddam had committed a material breach of his obligations under the existing UN Resolution 1441. There was concern that insufficient evidence had been unearthed by the UN inspection team, led by Dr Hans Blix.

That was why other options, such as the aircraft in UN colours, were considered.

Last night Sir Menzies Campbell, acting Liberal Democrat leader, said: “If these allegations are accurate, the Prime Minister and President Bush were determined to go to war with or without a second UN resolution, and Britain was signed up to do so by the end of January 2003.”

He added: “By then it was clear that there was no credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction, the stated justification for the moves against Saddam Hussein. The fact that consideration was apparently given to using American military aircraft in UN colours to provoke Saddam graphically illustrates the rush to war.”

Lawless World by Philippe Sands



Please let me add (RUTH'S BLOG), BUSH'S FIRST NATIONAL SECURITY MEETING.....lets go to WAR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then there’s Paul O’Neill’s account of National Security Council (NSC) meetings when he was Treasury Secretary. According to O’Neill, Bush’s first National Security Council meeting on January 30, 2001 focused on Iraq – and, at this meeting, CIA Director George Tenet said the Agency’s intelligence was so poor "we’d be going in there blind." At a February 1, 2001 meeting, participants were given a document entitled "Political-Military Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said: "[W]hat we really want to think about is going after Saddam…Imagine what the region would look like without Saddam and with a regime that’s aligned with U.S. interests.".............


Did the Administration Plan to Create a False Pretext for War?

According to Hubris by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, Bush authorized a covert CIA program for Iraq in February 2002. Among other things, it included a scheme to "stage a phony incident that could be used to start a war. A small group of Iraqi exiles would be flown into Iraq by helicopter to seize an isolated military base near the Saudi border. They then would take to the airwaves and announce a coup was under way. If Saddam responded by flying troops south, his aircraft would be shot down by U.S. fighter planes patrolling the no-fly zones established by UN edict after the first Persian Gulf War. A clash of this sort could be used to initiate a full-scale war." Needless to say, Congress has never investigated this.

Moreover, all this jibes with what senior policymakers were saying at the time. On February 24, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell stated publicly: "Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." And on July 29, 2001 Condoleezza Rice told CNN: "…Let’s remember that [saddam's] country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." What intelligence were these statements based on?

Was the Intelligence Community Pressured?

According to the SSCI Phase I report and the WMD Commission, the CIA and other agencies came to their conclusions of their own remarkably free will. To create this narrative, however, the reports had to overlook some glaring contradictions.

For instance, two books – James Bamford’s A Pretext for War and Lindsay Moran’s Blowing My Cover – describe what seems to be the same incident in which an anonymous CIA source claims administration pressure on the Agency "was blatant." The source reported that his or her boss told a group of fifty analysts that "if Bush wants to go to war, it’s your job to give him a reason to do so." Neither Bamford, nor Moran was contacted for the previous investigations.

and ...................................below more phoney staging.......

Likewise, we know from a leaked British memo that Bush was talking about other possible pretexts in early 2003. In the memo’s language, Bush told Blair, "The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours… If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach" of U.N. resolutions requiring Iraq’s cooperation with the ongoing weapons inspections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
  • Create New...