Bush White House Ignored bin Laden Warnings, Because They Wanted Iraq

On the anniversary of 9/11, sentiments always run high. Chiefly sorrow for the lives lost in the towers and the lives lost in the ensuing wars. For many, anger is the dominant emotion; an attack on American soil is a call to arms. The U.S. government’s response to 9/11 parlayed that anger into decisive action. It rode the raw anger and bruised patriotism of the American people straight into Iraq. And like many decisions made in anger, the consequences of the decision made the situation exponentially worse.

In the op-ed section of today’s New York Times, Kurt Eichenwald details the Bush administration’s refusal to seriously acknowledge the C.I.A.’s increasingly vocal pleas to take  the information they had amassed regarding Osama Bin Laden seriously (emphasis mine):

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were polar opposites, ideologically. They would have been as likely to conspire together as Family Guy’s Seth MacFarlane and Westboro Baptist Church founder Fred Phelps. Middle East experts and the intelligence community knew such a connection was preposterous, but the Bush administration sold it to Americans. The question that we should be asking is, “Why?”

If you follow the evidence, the answer is clear; money. Lots of it. And perhaps as payback to a business partner, who backed out of a deal. The Institute for Policy Studies released a report (the link prompts you to open a PDF) on March 24, 2003, detailing the relationships between Bechtel Corporation, the Reagan Administration and Saddam Hussein. It’s includes a startling timeline that goes back as far as 1911, when Iraq was still known as Mesopotamia.

But it’s in 1983 when events that led to America’s invasion of Iraq began to take place. That’s when it first became known to the U.S. government that Iraq was using chemical weapons “almost daily.” 1983 was also the year the negotiations began with Saddam Hussein to build an oil pipeline from Jordan to Iraq. Below is a neat summary of the timeline from This Modern World by Tom Tomorrow:

Tomorrow does an excellent job of covering the ‘high points’ of the report, but I urge you to read the full document. In context, it shows the anatomy of a group of powerful people so obsessed with acquiring their objective after two decades, they not only allowed the tragedy of 9/11; they immediately, cynically seized it as an opportunity, at the cost of countless thousands of lives.

That’s to say nothing of the financial catastrophe these men foisted on our nation. Rumsfeld, Shultz and others, including our friends at Halliburton, used the resources of the American government (and therefore, her people) as a means to implement an ‘unfriendly takeover’ of a ‘property’ they’d been after since the 1980’s. And to my thinking, engaged in the wholesale embezzlement of government funds. There’s billions and billions of dollars we’ll never be able to account for, but it’s clear that these people profited mightily.

The name ‘Osama bin Laden’ meant nothing to the Bush Administration before 9/11, and it meant nothing to them after the invasion was complete. Remember how quickly they forgot? The only time they ever cared about him, was when they were linking him to Saddam Hussein; in other words, when they were telling us lies.

This is what it looks like when ‘businessmen’ run your government. Your government becomes an asset, a means to an end. And, we know how Mitt Romney treats assets. We need to take whatever lengths necessary to prevent what remains of the American government from being sold for parts. And we must remember not only the loss of lives on this anniversary, but also what those lives were worth to the conservative ‘government’ , who traded justice for a long sought-after payoff.


An aside: I used several sources to compile this story. That is, more often than not, the means by which I’m able to share information with you. I would like to call two things to your attention in that regard:

  1. Much of the information gathered here, was first brought to my attention through ‘alternative publications,’ some would call it ‘underground journalism.’ Tom Tomorrow, Matt Taibbi, and the investigators who created ‘Crude Vision’ for IPS: Jim Vallette
    with Steve Kretzmann and Daphne Wysham, are not the ‘Mainstream Media.’ They represent the last pure facet for journalism left in the United States. They do their work free of editors whose interests may be compromised by C.E.O.’s or ratings. They can report the truth with impunity, however their important work too often goes unseen, because they lack the ability to reach as many people as the media conglomerates. Even the New York Times and Rolling Stone, don’t have the capacity to reach as many people as Fox, or NBC.
  2. All of the information shared here, has been sourced or linked to its original authors; I don’t claim to have uncovered the facts presented, I have summarized and (hopefully) given context to them. I am, or endeavor to be, a ‘citizen journalist.’ You may find that title loftier than my talents merit. You can refer to me as a blogger, writer, that jerk, or whatever you choose. I’m just gratified that you’ve read my work.

Most of the writers at Addicting Info. are like me; people whose primary goal is to inform you of a story, you may or may not have already seen somewhere else. And perhaps to share our opinion on what’s going on in our world today. We do so with varying degrees of both ability and success. For the most part, we toil in anonymity, or close to it. Writing here is a form of expression, and our way of being involved in the political process. While I don’t know what’s in the hearts of our many correspondents, I think I can speak for the majority, when I say; we do this because we care about what happens next.

Lately this page has been under attack from a couple different sources; it’s a by-product of success, I suppose. As the story above illustrates, there are plenty of people who have good cause to work against an informed citizenry. I hope you’ll support this page and its writers and editors, so we can continue to support your right to know.


You can join me on Facebook (at least for now) and Twitter