Nothing "mild" about the White House using 9-11 to try and justify a pre-planned war with Iraq (for its oil). Somehow, almost half the people in this country at one point believed Saddam was behind 9-11. Since he had no connection to it, a we know how, a disinformation campaign was certainly put in play by "somebody". Bush never came out and said Saddam was behind 9-11, but he and Cheney did claim Saddam had Al Qaida connections, and that was a lie too. The point is, you dont LIE to the American people abou wars and national calamities. It's not leadership it mis-leadership.
Media Silent on Clark's 9/11 Comments
> Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
> Friday 20 June 2003
> Gen. says White House pushed Saddam link without evidence
> Sunday morning talk shows like ABC's This Week or Fox News Sunday often
make news for
> days afterward. Since prominent government officials dominate the guest
lists of the programs, it
> is not unusual for the Monday editions of major newspapers to report on
interviews done by the
> Sunday chat shows.
> But the June 15 edition of NBC's Meet the Press was unusual for the buzz
that it didn't generate.
> Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush
administration officials had
> engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11
attacks-- starting that
> very day. Clark said that he'd been called on September 11 and urged to
link Baghdad to the terror attacks, but declined to do so because of a lack
of evidence.
> Here is a transcript of the exchange:
> CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting
immediately
> after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."
> RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"
> CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the
> White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN,
and I got a
> call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is
state-sponsored
> terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm
willing to
> say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."
> Clark's assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS Evening News story that
aired on September 4,
> 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: "Barely five hours after
American Airlines Flight 77
> plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides
to start thinking about
> striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to
the attacks."
> According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote Rumsfeld
asking for the "best info
> fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only
UBL." (The initials SH
> and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then
quote Rumsfeld as
> demanding, ominously, that the administration's response "go
massive...sweep it all up, things
> related and not."
> Despite its implications, Martin's report was greeted largely with silence
when it aired. Now, nine
> months later, media are covering damaging revelations about the Bush
administration's
> intelligence on Iraq, yet still seem strangely reluctant to pursue stories
suggesting that the flawed
> intelligence-- and therefore the war-- may have been a result of
deliberate deception, rather than
> incompetence. The public deserves a fuller accounting of this story. |
