U.S. OK'd plan to topple the Taliban and expel Osama on September 10, 2001

[AGENDA21]

September 10, 2001 - U.S. OK'd plan to topple the Taliban and expel Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan.
QUESTION: How would they be allowed to do this without the events of 9/11? How can they prepare for a war before the reason for the war occurs?

Officials did not believe that Bush had had the opportunity to closely review the document in the two days between its submission and the Sept. 11 attacks. But it had been submitted to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, and the officials said Bush knew about it and had been expected to sign it.

The couching of the plans as a formal security directive is significant, Miklaszewski reported, because it indicates that the United States intended a full-scale assault on al-Qaida even if the Sept. 11 attacks had not occurred.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/

[hack89]

1. This was a high priority of the Clinton presidency..

If you remember, Richard Clark, who was Clinton's anti-terrorist czar, wrote up this plan in 1999. Clark, who was kept on by Bush, proposed a high level meeting in January of 2001 to discuss and formalize the plan. The White House blew him off until early September. The existence of this plan was the reason why Bush was able to react and attack Afghanistan so quickly- it was well known throughout the government to include Pentagon and CIA input.

There was tremendous criticism of Bush at the time because Clark charged that the White House was too focused on Iraq and ignored al-Qaida.

[killtown]

2. Devils advocate

(This post is for everybody.)

Since this article proves the US was going to attack Afghanistan, couldn't one argue that the 9/11 attacks were justified by Al Qaeda (if we assume the official 9/11 story is true) as a "pre-emptive strike" against the country that was planning to invade them? I mean if the US can "justifiably" pre-emptive strike all over the place, why can't other do the same to us?

[hack89]

3. How could it be pre-emptive

when this plan was Clinton's reaction to multiple Al Qaeda attacks on US interests.

Along with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, the Embassy Bombing is one of the major anti-American terrorist attacks that preceded the September 11, 2001 attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings

remember, this plan was written by Clinton's terrorism czar Richard Clark, who was kept on by Bush.

[killtown]

4. What matter would it be if it was Clinton's plan or not?

If Al Qaeda thought we were about to unjustifiably attack them, why shouldn't they pre-emtive strike at us?

[hack89]

5. But they attacked three time before this plan was written..

so how can it be unjustified and how can it be pre-emptive? It is clearly reactive - are you saying that it was an unreasonable response to USS Cole, Khobar towers and the embassy bombings? Only a fool would believe that there were not more attacks on Americans coming. 911 was not out of the blue and should have been anticipated - which is the real crime commited by Bush.

[killtown]

7. Allegedly attacked us three times

but even if they did, I doubt they attacked us because we are "free" and they had they own "justifiable" reasons to attack us and when they saw us about to invade them, they pre-emptive struck us.

[hack89]

9. What the hell are you talking about?

911 took at least a year to plan - it was done with absolutely no knowledge of this plan.

Are you saying that they were justified in killing Americans?

[killtown]

10. Justified by our standards

The US causes more collateral damage than who died on 9/11. If A/Q knew we were going to invade them (hypothetically) why wouldn't they be justified by hitting us first?

Btw, who said 9/11 took at least a year to plan?

[hack89]

12. Paul Thompson does...

April-May 2000: Hijacker Marwan Alshehhi boasts of planning an attack to a Hamburg librarian. He says, "There will be thousands of dead. You will think of me... In America something is going to happen." He specifically mentions the WTC. Meanwhile, at the same time in the US, hijacker Mohamed Atta is even more forthcoming when applying for a $650,000 loan at the Department of Agriculture. Atta says he just arrived from Afghanistan, asks about security at the WTC, discusses al-Qaeda and its need for American membership, says bin Laden "would someday be known as the world's greatest leader," threatens to cut the throat of the bureaucrat and steal the money from her safe, asks "How would America like it if another country destroyed and some of the monuments in it like the cities in country had been destroyed?," referring to a government building in Washington, asks "How would you like it if somebody flew an airplane into your friends' building?", and so on.

There are other entries that show the plot was ongoing for more than a year.

http://billstclair.com/911timeline/

[killtown]

13. BTW

The PNAC's "We need a new Pearl Harbor" essay came out in 2000.

[hack89]

18. So ? nt

[killtown]

20. Just providing evidence that PNAC

could have been planning for 9/11 too.

[hack89]

23. No, that is not evidence ,,

just pure unfounded speculation on you part. BTW, how could PNAC plan 911 without the cooperation of the Clinton administration? After 8 years of Democrat control there could not have been too many PNAC supports hanging around.

[Make7]

24. BTW - "The Grand Chessboard" came out in 1998.

And as a side note - you should at least try to either use the actual name of the document, or quote the passage accurately.

- Make7

[EVDebs]

11. The 'carpet of gold or carpet of bombs' mentioned in the Enron

fiasco pipeline dealings with the Taliban and negotiations mentioned in Forbidden Truth by those French guys...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/08/ltm.05.html

"BUTLER: That's the allegation that instead of prosecuting properly an investigation of terrorism, which has its home in Afghanistan as we now know, or one of its main homes, that was shut down or slowed down in order to pursue oil interests with the Taliban. The people who we have now bombed out of existence, and this not many months ago. The book says that the negotiators said to the Taliban, you have a choice. You have a carpet of gold, meaning an oil deal, or a carpet of bombs. That's what the book alleges."

From Paula Zahn interview with weapons inspector Richard Butler

The 'Plan' may have been o.k.ed but the hesitation due to pipeline greed allowed for either MIHOP or LIHOP due to the competing PNAC plans to allow for a 'New Pearl Harbor' pretext for war in Iraq. The Ptech Saudi software firm, with FAA and intel computer access prior to 9-11, ability to monitor FAA air traffic and preknowledge of wargames on 9-11 (see http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html along with www.madcowprod.com research on the topic) should eliminate any talk of tinfoil hats.

[sabbat hunter]

6. no

because al-qaeda isnt
1) a legitmate fighting unit, they are a terrorist organization
2) it hit a civilian target deliberately never a justification for delibrately attacking a civilian target.
3) a country like Iran theoretically could launch a "preemtpive" strike against the US saying we were about to attack them, but Iran is a legitmate country. Al-qaeda is a terror organization.

[killtown]

8. Not a "legitimate" fighting unit???

1) What's a legitimate fighting unit them? Do they have to pass a test and get licensed or something?

2) Collateral damage. We have killed more innocent civilians in Afghan and Iraq each then those who died on 9/11.

3) Same as one.

[sabbat hunter]

14. al qaeda

is in no way shape or form a legitimate fighting unit. it is a terror organization. they ignore all rules of war as set by the geneva convention. they represent no country or rebel unit.
2) their attacks on civilians are not collateral damage. terrorists like al qaeda attack in a way to maximize civilian casualties

[killtown]

15. "Rules of War" LoL!

There are no rules in war. The only rule is kill or be killed.

Funny if we kill innocent people it's always "collateral damage," however if the "bad guys" kill innocent people it's always "terrorism". Why the double standard?

Btw, you still holding your Snopes.com Pentagon debunk attempt in high regard???

[sabbat hunter]

16. rules of war

1)i guess you dont believe in the geneva convention then.

2)are you saying al qaeda isnt a terror group? they certainly arent a legitmate fighting group.


and we arent talking about collateral damage. al qaeda attacked the US WTC on two seperate occassions in an effort to kill as many civilians in one shot as possible. how is that anything but a terror act by a terror group?



and yes i am because the only evidence you showed to the contrary was on your personal website, in which you obviously have an agenda.

[killtown]

17. 'Stop! Don't kill me like that! U R violating the G.C.!'

I hope that sounds absurd to you to.

they certainly arent a legitmate fighting group.

Can you please define a "legitimate fighting group"?

al qaeda attacked the US WTC on two seperate occassions in an effort to kill as many civilians in one shot as possible. how is that anything but a terror act by a terror group?

Well the WTC '93 bombing was an inside job too, but we are getting off the point.

and yes i am because the only evidence you showed to the contrary was on your personal website

No, I showed it here on DU too!

in which you obviously have an agenda.

What do you think my "agenda" is?

[sabbat hunter]

19. riddle me this

do you think al qaeda is a legit fighting group or a terror organization.

your agenda is to push a conspiracy theory.

[killtown]

21. What's your definition of a "legit fighting group" again?

And when are you going to defend your precious Snopes.com debunk attempt?

[sabbat hunter]

22. answer the question

is al qaeda a terror organization, and therfore illegal, in your opinion or not.