-Caveat Lector- In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 04:54:14PM -0000
The invasion of Afghanistan was definitely planned before 9-11. U.S. diplomats announced at a quiet meeting in Berlin in July 2001 that Bush would attack Afghanistan by October of that year. http://chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/4774 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1550000/audio/_1550366_afghan01_arney.ram http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4261737,00.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,556279,00.html Note that both of the U.S. government web pages linked to in the Indymedia article have been removed. The authors of these articles, written soon after 9-11, were under the impression that warning at this meeting of the invasion, conveyed to bin Laden via Pakistan and the Taliban, "provoked" him to carry out the 9-11 attacks. However, we now know, from the defense stand-down, Pentagon damage details, and many other pieces of evidence, that 9-11 was perpetrated by agents of the Bush Neocon junta. Here is a gateway to 9-11 research sites containing this evidence: http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911 The real reasons for invading Afghanistan were to build the Unocal pipeline to exploit Caspian Sea oil deposits (specifically needed to bail out a failing Enron power plant in Dabhol, India), restart heroin production in the area (which the Taliban had stopped), and terrorize the world with a capricious display of mass murder by the U.S. government and military. On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 04:54:14PM -0000, anthony_mcarthur wrote: >Hmmm, well, lessee, try and summarize. O'Neill/Suskind >are perpetrating a hoax. Cheney and Bush are victims of >a dastardly smear campaign. Cheney is obviously innocent >because the French are corrupt swine. Perhaps there is a fine >line between "The Glaring Errors of Suskind" and the mangeled >defense mechanisms activated to maintain our Pretzeldent's >honor in the face of all the vile "Bush Haters." I love to see >how all these "Glaring Errors" are brought to light before the >book is even published. But even so, the fundamental question >is ignored, and since a former top member of the administration >now asks it, it deserves even greater scruitiny. And that is: >did the Administration preplan not only Iraq, but Afghanistan >as well, and was 911 merely the triggering device. We are not >talking about a licentious womanizer lying about a blow job. >We are talking about people who are willing to lie, kill, and >let our own people be blown to bits so that the administration >can fulfill it's neocon Mossad wish list (which in no small >part includes self enrichment and the massive payola cronyism). >If this does not deserve greater scruitiny then... what the >hell, Bush should run unapposed and when Colon Powell steps >down he can be replaced with that bastion of clearsighted >inspiration, Ann Coulter! That would make about as much >sense as the jist of what herein was scrawled. > >--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Lea Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Thanks Laurie Mylroie, >> >> wouldn't have thought we would meet again so quickly! >> >> Well sure we know it's all about Al Quaeda/ >> Iraq/terrorism/dictorship/freedom - but >> would just love to know more about: "Cheney's >> super-secret-energy-task-force-papers"!!! anyway Even more >> so, since now he is on trial in France ... (never mind they >> are just as corrupt there, with all the money-suitcases >> circling around Elf-Aquitaine ... ) >> >> Barbara >> >> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=11722 >> >> Paul O'Neill's Lies About Iraq >> By John H. Hinderaker >> PowerLineBlog.com | January 13, 2004 >> >> Laurie Mylroie sent out an email about Paul O'Neill's >> appearance on 60 Minutes last night; she notes what appears >> to be a major error in Ron Suskind's book, which >> casts doubt on the credibility of both Suskind and >> O'Neill. Here is the key portion of Mylroie's email: >> >> "In his appearance this evening on '60 Minutes,' Ron Suskind, >> author of The Price of Loyalty, based to a large extent >> on information from former Secretary of the Treasury Paul >> O'Neill, made an astonishing, very serious misstatement. >> >> "Suskind claimed he has documents showing that preparations >> for the Iraq war were well underway before 9-11. He >> cited--and even showed--what he said was a Pentagon document, >> entitled, 'Foreign Suitors for Iraq Oilfield Contracts.' He >> claimed the document was about planning for post-war Iraq >> oil (CBS's promotional story also contained that claim): >> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/printable592330.shtml >> >> "But that is not a Pentagon document. It's from the >> Vice-President's Office. It was part of the Energy Project >> that was the focus of Dick Cheney's attention before the >> 9/11 strikes. >> >> "And the document has nothing to do with post-war Iraq. It >> was part of a study of global oil supplies. Judicial >> Watch obtained it in a law suit and posted it, >> along with related documents, on its website at: >> http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml Indeed, when >> this story first broke yesterday, the Drudge Report had the >> Judicial Watch document linked (no one at CBS News saw that, >> so they could correct the error, when the show aired?)" >> >> What Mylroie says about the "Foreign Suitors" document is >> correct. The Judicial Watch link still works as of this >> morning, and as you can easily see, the document, dated >> March 5, 2001, has nothing to do with post-war planning. It >> is merely a list of existing and proposed "Iraqi Oil & >> Gas Projects" as of that date. And it includes projects >> in Iraq by countries that obviously would not have been >> part of any "post-war" plans of the Bush administration, >> such as, for example, Vietnam. >> >> So Suskind (and apparently O'Neill) misrepresented this >> document, which appears to be a significant part of their >> case, given that Suskind displayed in on 60 Minutes. It >> would not be possible for anyone operating in good faith >> to represent the document as Suskind did. >> >> But the truth is even worse than Mylroie pointed out in her >> email. The CBS promo linked to above says that this document >> "includes a map of potential areas for exploration. 'It >> talks about contractors around the world from, you know, >> 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions,' >> says Suskind. 'On oil in Iraq.'" >> >> True enough; there is a "map of potential areas for >> exploration" in Iraq here. But what Paul O'Neill and Ron >> Suskind don't tell you is that the very same set of documents >> that contain the Iraq map and the list of Iraqi oil projects >> contain the same maps and similar lists of projects for the >> United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia! When documents are >> produced in litigation (in this case, the Judicial Watch >> lawsuit relating to Cheney's energy task force), they are >> numbered sequentially. The two-page "Iraqi Oil Suitors" >> document that Suskind breathlessly touts is numbered >> DOC044-0006 through DOC044-0007. The Iraq oil map comes >> right before the list of Iraqi projects; it is numbered >> DOC044-0005. >> >> DOC044-0001 is a map of oil fields in the United >> Arab Emirates. DOC044-0002 is a list of oil and gas >> development projects then going on in the United Arab >> Emirates. DOC044-0003 is a map of oil fields in Saudi >> Arabia. DOC044-0004 is a list of oil and gas projects in >> Saudi Arabia. So the "smoking gun" documents that Suskind >> and O'Neill claim prove that the administration was planning >> to invade Iraq in March 2001 are part of a package that >> includes identical documents relating to the United Arab >> Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Does Paul O'Neill claim the >> administration was planning on invading them, too? Or, as >> Mylroie says, was this merely part of the administration's >> analysis of sources of energy in the 21st century? >> >> There is only one possible conclusion: Paul O'Neill and Ron >> Suskind are attempting to perpetrate a massive hoax on the >> American people. >> >> UPDATE: Paul Krugman is ecstatic about O'Neill's allegations, >> and views them as vindicating his three years of over-the-top >> Bush hatred. Needless to say, Krugman has nothing to say >> about O'Neill's and Suskind's fraudulent misrepresentation of >> the documents on which their claims are based. The battle is >> joined: the New York Times propagates lies, the blogosphere >> points out undeniable facts that are inconvenient for the >> left. Spread the word. >> >> This piece originally appeared on PowerLineBlog.com and >> appears here with permission. > www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
