Dec 01 2009

“I think it will strike a lot of people as being very accurate”

Rep. Maurice Hinchey

Shuster: You think they deliberately let al Qaeda get away right after the 9/11 attacks? You really believe that?

Hinchey: yes I do. There’s really no question about that because the leader of our military operation in the United States called back our military. Called them back from going after the head of al Qaeda because there was a sense…

Shuster: Congressman, you can accuse them of malfeasance, you can accuse them of dropping the ball, of having an awful plan. I think that would be justified. But to suggest that they deliberately let Osama bin Laden get away so that they could justify the war in Iraq, that will strike a lot of people as crazy.

Hinchey: I don’t think it will strike a lot of people as crazy. I think it will strike a lot of people as being very accurate. And all you have to do is look at the facts of that set of circumstances and you can see that’s exactly what happened. When we went in there, when our military went in there, we could have captured them. We could have captured most of the al Qaeda, but we didn’t. And we didn’t because of the need felt by the previous administration and the need of the previous head of the military, that need to attack Iraq which was completely unjustified…

h/t digby

25 comments

Skip to comment form

    • TMC on December 1, 2009 at 06:30
    • #

    who already had figured this out as being the truth. Now, we have Obama following in Bush’s footsteps to justify staying in the region. For what purpose? The pursuit of Al Qaeda? They’re in the hills of Pakistan, protected by the tribal lords and the Taliban. To protect Karzai and a corrupt powerless government in Kabul? Or is it to continue to help cover up the continued war crimes of our own government? What does Dick Cheney have on Obama?

    • Miep on December 1, 2009 at 08:01
    • #

    Expeditious.

    I could come up with other adjectives.

    War is big money.

    • Inky99 on December 1, 2009 at 08:08
    • #

    But for a Congressman to come out and say this on a “news” show, well, that’s certainly new!

    • dkmich on December 1, 2009 at 12:55
    • #

    They lied about WMDs and went into to Iraq for absolutely no fucking reason, but it is totally inconceivable to him that they deliberately let Osama go?   On what does he base his incredulity?  Gregory is a waste.  Madow would be great in that job.  

  6. http://www.marciasparadise.com…

  7. In March 2004, NBC News’ Jim Miklaszewski reported that the White House had three times in 2002 turned down a Pentagon request to attack Zarqawi, who then was believed to be running a weapons lab in northern Iraq – in territory not controlled by Saddam Hussein’s government. Miklaszewski wrote that “the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.” That is, the Bush White House let Zarqawi alone so it would have an easier time selling the war in Iraq.

    Here are some excerpts from the Miklaszewski article:

    NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself – but never pulled the trigger.

    In June 2002…[t]he Pentagon…drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and air strikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council…

    Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

    The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

    “People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey. …

    The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

    Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

    link

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories…

  8. and saw that I was the one who gave you a one. I didn’t mean to do that. Thanks for the short snippet, it was interesting.  

  9. It was Tiger Woods and that sneak into the White House state dinner couple.

    Why does “news” always appear to be geared toward five year olds?

    Mainstream Mindwipe News…..hey, I like it!

Comments have been disabled.