PNAC in 1998

I'm sure many people are aware of the Rebuilding America's Defenses Document, released in September 2000 and what has served as the outline of the agenda for the middle east in the 21st century. The document that called for the need of a 'New Pearl Harbour' to speed up the process?

But you may not have seen this letter to President Clinton from the same organisation, calling for War in Iraq, dated 1998-

www.newamericancentury.org...

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished.

I'm posting this in 9/11 because the people who signed this, people like Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, they clearly had an agenda for Iraq.

9/11 was used to bring that agenda to fruitition. People were that scared after 9/11 that they believed the lies of WMD, missiles that Tony Blair claimed could reach us in minutes. Mass deception.

Is it just coincidence that these poweful people wanted war in Iraq and made that clear as early as 1998 and 9/11 happened to make it possible? Can it be coincidence, or did they let it happen to get what they wanted?

As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Think about this and how it ties in with Rumsfeld declaring the 'missing trillions' from Pentagon spending the day before 9/11. What would have been a huge scandal was brushed under the carpet this next day, just another coincidence?

So you’re saying that this proves that they used 9/11 as an excuse to go to war with Iraq

In that case why not fill the plane with Iraqi’s?

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
So you’re saying that this proves that they used 9/11 as an excuse to go to war with Iraq

In that case why not fill the plane with Iraqi’s?

Given 15/19 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, I'm not sure I get your point?

reply to post by Wonderer2012


That’s my point 15 of the 19 were from Saudi, why not if it was a false flag to justify invading Iraq have 15 or even 1 Iraqi?

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

That’s my point 15 of the 19 were from Saudi, why not if it was a false flag to justify invading Iraq have 15 or even 1 Iraqi?

But we didn't invade Saudi Arabia?

reply to post by Wonderer2012


No because the 19 were all members of Al-Qa’ida, what I am saying to you is that if 9/11 was part of a false flag operation to justify the invasion of Iraq then why not “fake” 19 members of the Iraqi Republican Guard hijacking the planes.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Iraq was invaded because of the WMD lie. This lie was a LOT more effective on the public after 9/11.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


No actually there was WMD’s if you look at the wikileaks files there are over 600 references to WMD munitions one of the other reasons was because they believed wrongly but understandably that there was a connection between Saddam and Al-Qa’ida.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Ummmm...speculation there...not necessarily from Saudi...I mean why would terroists actually use legit passports...come on get real....Could it be possible that the were false passports.....but i guess not as the Government would not lie about such a thing now would they.

Also why if you think about it...if the Saudi's were involved...why on this green earth would they want the finger pointed at them...using your own logic here.

reply to post by plube


No its not speculation, if you have proof that they were not for Saudi then please do shear.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Exactly....SPECULATION...on your part....blind belief that what your told by authorities it's true.

reply to post by plube


no there is a lot more speculation on your side. I could point to the interviews form the hijackers wife’s, all the media reports that talk about the 15 of the 19 being form Saudi, I could talk about every report into the attack, what the American government had to say on the issue and what international and national intelligence officials have to say about then I go on about what the academics and the experts who write about Al-Qa’ida have to say. All agree 15 of the 19 were Saudis’

What do you have, a few links to a bunch of “alternative media sites” , believe me you are the one who is speculating not me.

if 9/11 was part of a false flag operation to justify the invasion of Iraq then why not “fake” 19 members of the Iraqi Republican Guard hijacking the planes.

Because maybe we had no Iraqi agents/assetts that would do it for us?

I heard a guy on Coast to Coast recently that wrote a book outlining evidence that the Saudi Intelligence Services did 9-11 at the bidding of the neocons.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Hope you get paid well...

reply to post by Wonderer2012

Hope you get paid well...

by who?

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

Hope you get paid well...

by who?

You seriously think they never used 9/11 to invade Iraq? That the WMD lies would have had any impact pre 9/11? Come on man.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


No they tried to claim that Al-Qa’ida and Saddam had a connection however this link was understandable at the time but even the 9/11 commission said that Iraq had no link to 9/11 as did every part of the American intelligence apparatus.

And yes there was WMD’s just look at the wikileaks files

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

No they tried to claim that Al-Qa’ida and Saddam had a connection however this link was understandable at the time but even the 9/11 commission said that Iraq had no link to 9/11 as did every part of the American intelligence apparatus.

And yes there was WMD’s just look at the wikileaks files

Why are you defending war criminals?

reply to post by Wonderer2012


I am not defending them, but please go look at the Iraq wikileaks documents the talk about the presence of Chemical weapons at length in Iraq in over 600 documents.

But back to your thread, why if the attacks were a false flag to invade Iraq did they no “fake” 19 members of the IRG?

If there were WMD, why are they (Bush/Blair) saying there weren't any as it turns out?