Hi Sarah, The following is what I've read in regards to points you raise: 1. Simons doesn't deny saying this, but says it may have been said in a moment when 'he had too much to drink.' Former Pakistani foreign minister Naif Naik was present at these meetings, and is the original source for the quote, and also to the content of the meetings. The problem with saying the meetings with the Taliban were primarily for the purpose of handing over bin Laden, is contradicted by the fact that the Bush administration seemed to have the policy that it couldn't care less about him - they dismantled the many-layered military response Clinton had assembled to get bin Laden: took away the Predator surveillance drone, the AC-130 gunships, the two cruise-missile equipped subs, the special-ops troops in Uzbekistan. According to Jane's Intelligence Weekly, the Bush administration also made the 'political decision to ignore unprecedented intelligence' on bin Laden supplied by Russia, intelligence so detailed that, for a time, a successful hit would have been assured. 2. The accounts I've read are that Hussein requested an appointment with Glaspie, announced his intentions and asked what the U.S. position would be. She cabled home, and received the response you quote that she gave Hussein, 'We have no position.' 3. If the members of the PNAC all reside currently at the top of the Bush administration, shouldn't an overlap of aims seem self-explanatory? 4. The need for a new 'Pearl Harbor' was first written of by Zbignew Brezinzki; it's inclusion in the PNAC goals was noted by Chalmers Johnson in an op-ed piece in last Sunday's LA Times. Johnson is a former foreign policy insider, who much like Kevin Phillips, has gone apostate. 5. As for 'Americans having something to do with 9/11' - I look at facts such as John Ashcroft, who had the USA-Patriot Act all ready to go when the attack came; Ashcroft stopped flying commercial at the end of July due to a 'threat assessment.' Bush himself got out of town for the whole next month, as did Cheney. It's fairly inexplicable that while CIA Director Tenet was distraught with fear of an attack, was giving briefings, etc., that the Bush administration had still not put a priority for the NSC to translate transmissions from Al Qaeda and the Taliban - so when the messages came thru that basically said 'Tomorrow's the big one!' they sat without attention. And look at the FBI warnings that were not just ignored, but actively subverted. The supervisor who cut off Cowley's investigation just got promoted and an award, for pete's sake. If it's not all a matter of criminal intent, that they let it happen on purpose, then it's certainly a matter of criminal negligence. And as John O'Neill, the FBI counter-terrorism chief who quit to die at the WTC said, 'It all goes back to the Saudi's, and while protecting the Saudi's was important in every administration, it became much more so with Bush.' 6. No link has been established between Hussein and 9/11. A link that has been established is that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency wired Atta $100k, and the guy was in Washington visiting the CIA at the time of the attacks. He was soon sacked though, so maybe he was an embarrassment. In any event, we didn't attack Pakistan, nor Saudi Arabia, who funded Al Qaeda, and probably continues to do so. But then, our CIA encouraged them to do all that during the 80's, in the Reagan/Bush scheme to contain and subvert the Soviet Union by surrounding it with radical Islam. Like I said, Blowback.
Hope this helps - Kent ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 1:58 PM Subject: Re: The True Bush Agenda In Iraq
Hi Kent, Thanks for sending in your interesting post. I agree with a lot of what you wrote, except a few points: 1. Tom Simons denies using the "carpet of gold/carpet of bombs" expression. But he admits they were trying to negotiate the handover of bin Laden for the attack on the USS Cole, and also raised the issue of the treatment of women, and were trying to find out whether the Taliban would be prepared to install a "broader government" as the Americans put it. That might have paved the way for the Americans to do business there. But the predominant thing for the Americans, with Clinton and Bush, was that the Taliban should hand over bin Laden, who was known to be a major threat before September 11. 2. It's not true that America via April Glaspie gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait in 1990. She responded to his war ramblings, just before the invasion, during a meeting called suddenly by Saddam, which she was given no warning of, and before which she had no time to contact her government, that "we have no opinion on Arab-Arab disputes". She didn't understand that he was warning her of an invasion, and when you read the very long transcript (and it is flowery language, hard to follow), you can only see that he might have meant this with hindsight. What he was saying is -- don't push me. I helped you with Iran, now help me with my economy. The Kuwaitis are trying to get more money out of me. Please warn them off. And she responded: "We have no opinion on Arab-Arab disputes." Saddam then called a series of meetings with the heads of state from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, to which he didn't turn up at the last minute, sending an official in his place. An argument broke out between the Iraqi official and the Kuwaiti Crown Prince. The official left the meeting, telling Saddam that Kuwait had insulted Iraq. Hours later, Saddam invaded. It was all very dramatic and very avoidable. America was caught off-guard by it. 3. The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) is a non-profit organization set up in 1997. What connection do they have, if any, with the Bush administration? 4. Can you refer me to the Cheney/Wolfowitz/Perle plan that was codified by the PNAC in the fall of 2000, and where they stated the need for a new Pearl Harbor? 5. Are you suggesting the Americans had something to do with September
11?
6. You say that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. But in the 80s, everyone said of the rejectionist Palestinian movement (the Palestinians who oppose Arafat) that there's no way they would ever hook up with the Islamists, because the rejectionists were Marxists, secular. But they did, because they needed the money, and even as all the experts were insisting otherwise, the PFLP and PFLP-GC were being funded by Iran. Same with Saddam. You team up with people who can further your interests. Sarah From: Kent Southard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It's generally been printed in only the 'better' papers, but this war on Iraq has been desired and planned, by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, etc., for some years now; as the first step towards American military domination of the oil of the Middle East. Their plan was codified most recently in the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) written in the fall of 2000, in which they openly stated the need for a new 'Pearl Harbor' in order to galvanize American public support for such a plan - this was supplied by 9/11. . . . When Hussein sought to invade Kuwait because they were drilling slantwise under the border, he sought our permission, and our ambassador, April Glaspie, gave it. . . . the Bush administration had re-opened negotiations with the Taliban, cut off by Clinton because of their human rights record, for the building of oil and gas pipelines through Afghanistan; these pipelines providing access to the reserves of the Caspian Sea, thought to be among the world's largest. The Taliban wasn't coming around, so Bush's representative, Tom Simons, told them 'Either accept our carpet of gold, or we will bury you in a carpet of bombs.' . . . Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with Wahabi fundamentalist terrorism.
