Clinton Official Suggested Letting U.S. Plane Be Shot Down To Provoke war with Iraq

TMoreno

Who said that False Flag attack was only conspiracy theory? Try to debunk this one:

General Hugh Shelton in his new memoir, Without Hesitation: The Odyssey of an American Warrior claims:

At one of my very first breakfasts, while Berger and Cohen were engaged in a sidebar discussion down at one end of the table and Tenet and Richardson were preoccupied in another, one of the Cabinet members present leaned over to me and said, “Hugh, I know I shouldn’t even be asking you this, but what we really need in order to go in and take out Saddam is a precipitous event — something that would make us look good in the eyes of the world. Could you have one of our U-2s fly low enough — and slow enough — so as to guarantee that Saddam could shoot it down?”The hair on the back of my neck bristled, my teeth clenched, and my fists tightened. I was so mad I was about to explode. I looked across the table, thinking about the pilot in the U-2 and responded, “Of course we can …” which prompted a big smile on the official’s face.

“You can?” was the excited reply.

“Why, of course we can,” I countered. “Just as soon as we get your ass qualified to fly it, I will have it flown just as low and slow as you want to go.”
The official reeled back and immediately the smile disappeared. “I knew I should not have asked that....”

“No, you should not have,” I strongly agreed, still shocked at the disrespect and sheer audacity of the question. “Remember, there is one of our great Americans flying that U-2, and you are asking me to intentionally send him or her to their death for an opportunity to kick Saddam. The last time I checked, we don’t operate like that here in America.”

The worst thing is that the self proclaimed "debunkers" are going to say:"see they did not do it, they are not that bad". You are so naive!

gizmo

What is there to debunk? One US official asked a US General whether they could fly a single-seater spy plane low enough so it could be shot down. The General was disgusted at the thought of a single life being lost in such a pursuit. I'm sure it did happen and I'm sure he reacted that way.

So following on from that, you then want to believe that instead of doing just that to start a war (bearing in mind that official thought that's all it would take), they crashed three passenger planes and brought down three buildings? Really?

seannash

TMoreno wrote: »

Try to debunk this one:

Debunk what exactly

My name is URL

The thing I find interesting is that the guy obviously felt justified in suggesting it as an idea to gain support for a war in Iraq. Yes it was shot down by his superiors, but would he have even brought it up unless they were actually already looking for a reason to go to war?

bonkey

My name is URL wrote: »

but would he have even brought it up unless they were actually already looking for a reason to go to war?

Does anyone doubt that the US (or Bush, or some subset of the neocons) wanted a reason to go after Iraq?

gizmo

bonkey wrote: »

Does anyone doubt that the US (or Bush, or some subset of the neocons) wanted a reason to go after Iraq?

Probably Bush and some subset of the neocons. :pac:

robtri

i am sure it was raised, i have no doubt of that...

but i also believe that the raise a lot of other chilling and callous measures, that never happen either...

but i dont see a CT here either

My name is URL

bonkey wrote: »

Does anyone doubt that the US (or Bush, or some subset of the neocons) wanted a reason to go after Iraq?

I'd say quite a few either choose to overlook or refuse to believe that they were willing to go to great lengths to ensure they had public support for the war. Of course they needed a reason, and ultimately they created one themselves.

robtri wrote: »

i am sure it was raised, i have no doubt of that...

but i also believe that the raise a lot of other chilling and callous measures, that never happen either...

Chilling and callous measures that never happen? You don't get more chilling and callous than going to war under false pretense and costing the lives of 5,000 soldiers & 70,000 civilians.

meglome

I have little doubt that worse things have been suggested too. But I'm with gizmo here, they rejected even the loss of one American life to start a war Bush and his buddies clearly wanted. So that would suggest they would never be involved in 911. Course it doesn't prove they weren't but it is yet another reason to think they weren't.

chainsaws

I don't know what you are complaining about exactly?

Saddam was an evil psychotic dictator - put in power by the CIA - and the Americans finally got their thumb out of their backsides and instead of wussy air-strikes during the Clinton years, they realized after 9/11 when they were humilated by Al-Qaeda, America had to flex some muscle and leaving Iraq as a giant weeping running sore could not be tolerated.

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 but that was not the point.
Saddam symbolised everything that America had been doing wrong in the Mid East - supporting coups, backing strongmen and giving them high tech weapons in return for oil.
He had to go and the Iraqi people deserve to be free.

Today things are better - Iraq is a mess but it is slowly cleaning itself up, their is a democratic system and millions of people have their freedom and they chance to lift their country out of poverty.

A lot of blood has been shed, America has got a bloody nose from the insurgents but the Islamist nutjobs didn't win in the end.

The Iraqis can now rebuild their country and become an ally in the region the same way as Germany and Japan did after the fall of their own tyrannies.

The democracy in Iraq can have a positve effect on its neighbours.

King Mob

I think this account smells a little like bull**** as well.
Where as it's but possible and probably that such a meeting took place and the those sentiments where exchanged, I seriously doubt that the words: “Remember, there is one of our great Americans flying that U-2, and you are asking me to intentionally send him or her to their death for an opportunity to kick Saddam. The last time I checked, we don’t operate like that here in America.” where actually said.

Sounds a bit like the author wanted some patriotic music welling up as they where spoken.
Maybe even an America flag fading in on the background.

PanchoVilla

Sounds remarkably like the U-2 that was shot down over Cuba when the CIA and Joint Chiefs of Staff were pushing JFK into a full-scale war with Castro. Coincidence?

chainsaws

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Sounds remarkably like the U-2 that was shot down over Cuba when the CIA and Joint Chiefs of Staff were pushing JFK into a full-scale war with Castro. Coincidence?

JFK, the CIA and the Joint Chiefs kept it quiet until after the stand off over Cuba was over to avoid an escalation.

PanchoVilla

chainsaws wrote: »

JFK, the CIA and the Joint Chiefs kept it quiet until after the stand off over Cuba was over to avoid an escalation.

Actually, JFK kept it quiet. The CIA and JCS wanted to use it as an excuse to invade Cuba but JFK refused and continued with his negotiations with Russia. Probably another reason why JFK was assassinated. The CIA don't like being told what they can or can't do.

chainsaws

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Actually, JFK kept it quiet. The CIA and JCS wanted to use it as an excuse to invade Cuba but JFK refused and continued with his negotiations with Russia. Probably another reason why JFK was assassinated. The CIA don't like being told what they can or can't do.

You were watching the movie Thirteen Days again weren't you?
The Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA didn't want to fight World War 3 any more than Kennedy.
Kennedy was killed by Oswald who clipped him on his lunch break.

PanchoVilla

chainsaws wrote: »

You were watching the movie Thirteen Days again weren't you?
The Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA didn't want to fight World War 3 any more than Kennedy.
Kennedy was killed by Oswald who clipped him on his lunch break.

This just in: war mongers don't like war. Coming up later on Faux News....

meglome

PanchoVilla wrote: »

This just in: war mongers don't like war. Coming up later on Faux News....

Doesn't mean they were stupid enough to go head to head with the Soviet Union.

robtri

My name is URL wrote: »

Chilling and callous measures that never happen? You don't get more chilling and callous than going to war under false pretense and costing the lives of 5,000 soldiers & 70,000 civilians.

I am sure there are a lot more chilling....

nuclear bomb iraq... millions dead, and effects for generations

bio warfare....

i am sure there are a lot more chilling stuff we dont know about....

PanchoVilla

meglome wrote: »

Doesn't mean they were stupid enough to go head to head with the Soviet Union.

And yet that's exactly what they were pushing JFK to do. The U.S. military had plans already drawn out for a full-scale invasion of Cuba, they just needed the president's word to put into action. JFK decided against this and went the diplomatic route, offering to lift the naval blockade and dismantle missile sites in Turkey.

The military industrial complex, by way of the CIA and JCS, wanted nothing more than a long, drawn out war with Russia. It meant they would get all the funding they wanted and could show off their new toys. War is a business and JFK was messing with their turnover.

WakeUp

chainsaws wrote: »

I don't know what you are complaining about exactly?

Saddam was an evil psychotic dictator - put in power by the CIA - and the Americans finally got their thumb out of their backsides and instead of wussy air-strikes during the Clinton years, they realized after 9/11 when they were humilated by Al-Qaeda, America had to flex some muscle and leaving Iraq as a giant weeping running sore could not be tolerated.

What exactly is your point here? Are you saying that because of what happened on 9/11 that the US had the right to lie to the world about the mythical WMD, then bomb Iraq back to stoneage and then illegally occupy that country all in the name of " freedom"? What do you mean America had to flex some muscel what are you on about? Are you familiar with the devastating sanctions on the civilian population of Iraq imposed by the Clinton administration. Have you any idea how many innocent people died because of those sanctions.

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 but that was not the point.
Saddam symbolised everything that America had been doing wrong in the Mid East - supporting coups, backing strongmen and giving them high tech weapons in return for oil.
He had to go and the Iraqi people deserve to be free.

Can you elaborate a little on that please.

Today things are better - Iraq is a mess but it is slowly cleaning itself up, their is a democratic system and millions of people have their freedom and they chance to lift their country out of poverty.A lot of blood has been shed, America has got a bloody nose from the insurgents but the Islamist nutjobs didn't win in the end.

The Iraqis can now rebuild their country and become an ally in the region the same way as Germany and Japan did after the fall of their own tyrannies.

The democracy in Iraq can have a positve effect on its neighbours.

The US invasion and occupation was and will always be illegal based on lies no matter what way you care to dress it up. History will judge it this way.

robtri

and how many more civillians would have died at the hands of saddam if they had not invaded...

talk has it that he killed upwards of 2 million till america took him down

WakeUp

robtri wrote: »

and how many more civillians would have died at the hands of saddam if they had not invaded...

A lot less that have died since the invasion and the countless more that will continue to die because of the invasion. The sanctions imposed by the Clinton administration in ten years prior to the invasion killed hundreds of thousands of people the vast majority of them children.

talk has it that he killed upwards of 2 million till america took him down

Can you back that statement up?...

PanchoVilla

robtri wrote: »

and how many more civillians would have died at the hands of saddam if they had not invaded...

talk has it that he killed upwards of 2 million till america took him down

And you have evidence of this I'm sure. Yes, Saddam killed Kurds in the north after they rose up and tried to start a civil war in Iraq. That rebellion was caused by U.S. promises to the Kurds just after the Persian Gulf war.

The U.S. told the Kurds that they would help them in any struggle against Saddam but when the Kurds actually began fighting the U.S. left them all to die. Saddam did what any leader would do when their country is under attack, he killed the attackers. His methods were brutal but effective, using chemical weapons sold to him by the U.S for Iraq's war against Iran.

So, any other people that Saddam killed or is that about it?

robtri

PanchoVilla wrote: »

And you have evidence of this I'm sure. Yes, Saddam killed Kurds in the north after they rose up and tried to start a civil war in Iraq. That rebellion was caused by U.S. promises to the Kurds just after the Persian Gulf war.

The U.S. told the Kurds that they would help them in any struggle against Saddam but when the Kurds actually began fighting the U.S. left them all to die. Saddam did what any leader would do when their country is under attack, he killed the attackers. His methods were brutal but effective, using chemical weapons sold to him by the U.S for Iraq's war against Iran.

So, any other people that Saddam killed or is that about it?

saddam still killed them, and there is a lot more than the kurds....
saddam still ordered their execution

robtri

WakeUp wrote: »

A lot less that have died since the invasion and the countless more that will continue to die because of the invasion. The sanctions imposed by the Clinton administration in ten years prior to the invasion killed hundreds of thousands of people the vast majority of them children.

Can you back that statement up?...

nope that why i said talk has it... not its a fact...

can you back up your statement that shows that clintons sanctions directly killed hundreds of thousands

fontanalis

PanchoVilla wrote: »

And you have evidence of this I'm sure. Yes, Saddam killed Kurds in the north after they rose up and tried to start a civil war in Iraq. That rebellion was caused by U.S. promises to the Kurds just after the Persian Gulf war.

The U.S. told the Kurds that they would help them in any struggle against Saddam but when the Kurds actually began fighting the U.S. left them all to die. Saddam did what any leader would do when their country is under attack, he killed the attackers. His methods were brutal but effective, using chemical weapons sold to him by the U.S for Iraq's war against Iran.

So, any other people that Saddam killed or is that about it?

Saddam Hussein was a psychotic street thug with a Saldin complex, he killed anyone he seen as a threat. I disagreed with the Iraq war but this whole idea of pass the blame to the US and other nonsense spouted by some anti war people is why I'd never be seen dead at an anti war rally.

PanchoVilla

fontanalis wrote: »

Saddam Hussein was a psychotic street thug with a Saldin complex, he killed anyone he seen as a threat. I disagreed with the Iraq war but this whole idea of pass the blame to the US and other nonsense spouted by some anti war people is why I'd never be seen dead at an anti war rally.

Funny how the U.S had no real problem with Saddam until he started selling his oil for euros instead of dollars back in 2000. Only then was he deemed a ruthless dictator that had to be removed at all cost.

Also funny how we heard no mention of Iraq's national oil wells being auctioned off to the multinationals during the Copenhagen debacle.

fontanalis

I'm not talking about US double standards, that was well publicised in the lead up to the war. It's like the Cuba/Castro threads, it turns into "but, but America"

robtri

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Funny how the U.S had no real problem with Saddam until he started selling his oil for euros instead of dollars back in 2000. Only then was he deemed a ruthless dictator that had to be removed at all cost.

Also funny how we heard no mention of Iraq's national oil wells being auctioned off to the multinationals during the Copenhagen debacle.

and funny how u forget all the people he killed.....

PanchoVilla

robtri wrote: »

and funny how u forget all the people he killed.....

Like in Fallujah? Saddam kills thousands of innocent people and he's a ruthless murderer, the U.S. military kills thousands of innocent people and they're liberators. gtfo

Brown Bomber

TMoreno wrote: »

Who said that False Flag attack was only conspiracy theory? Try to debunk this one:

General Hugh Shelton in his new memoir, Without Hesitation: The Odyssey of an American Warrior claims:

At one of my very first breakfasts, while Berger and Cohen were engaged in a sidebar discussion down at one end of the table and Tenet and Richardson were preoccupied in another, one of the Cabinet members present leaned over to me and said, “Hugh, I know I shouldn’t even be asking you this, but what we really need in order to go in and take out Saddam is a precipitous event — something that would make us look good in the eyes of the world. Could you have one of our U-2s fly low enough — and slow enough — so as to guarantee that Saddam could shoot it down?”The hair on the back of my neck bristled, my teeth clenched, and my fists tightened. I was so mad I was about to explode. I looked across the table, thinking about the pilot in the U-2 and responded, “Of course we can …” which prompted a big smile on the official’s face.

“You can?” was the excited reply.

“Why, of course we can,” I countered. “Just as soon as we get your ass qualified to fly it, I will have it flown just as low and slow as you want to go.”
The official reeled back and immediately the smile disappeared. “I knew I should not have asked that....”

“No, you should not have,” I strongly agreed, still shocked at the disrespect and sheer audacity of the question. “Remember, there is one of our great Americans flying that U-2, and you are asking me to intentionally send him or her to their death for an opportunity to kick Saddam. The last time I checked, we don’t operate like that here in America.”

The worst thing is that the self proclaimed "debunkers" are going to say:"see they did not do it, they are not that bad". You are so naive!

Apparenytly it was Madeleine Albright

Readers aren't told explicitly who had this particular brainstorm, but Shelton gives you some clues. The breakfasts, he says, were attended by NSA Sandy Berger, Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, CIA Director George Tenet, Vice President Chief of Staff Leon Firth, and U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson. If you eliminate Berger, Cohen, Tenet, and Richardson and look at the Cabinet members that remain, you're sort of left where Elliott is: with Madeleine Albright.


Of course, as Jonathan Schwarz points out, this would hardly be the first or only time this sort of plan was discussed. Here's a New York Times article from 2006 on the build up to the 2003 Bush-led invasion of Iraq:
During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, [Bush] made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser...

"The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/15/hugh-shelton-book-clinton-iraq-war-albright_n_764403.html

WakeUp

robtri wrote: »

nope that why i said talk has it... not its a fact...

can you back up your statement that shows that clintons sanctions directly killed hundreds of thousands

I can yeah, I don’t really want to derail the thread anymore apologies for going off topic here OP, will give you a few quick examples though.
The US and British were the chief architects and administrators of the crippling UN sanctions directed against Iraq from the early 90’s up to the illegal, immoral lie based invasion of 2003.

These are the comments of Denis Halliday, an Irishman, who was the former UN Assistant Secretary General and the UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq 1997-98. He resigned his position in 1998 after 34 years in the UN.

Accepting the Gandhi International Peace Award in 2003, I explained my resignation from the United Nations as head of the UN Humanitarian Program in Iraq at the end of 1998. I indicated that resignation was necessary because of my refusal to accept Security Council orders that continued to impose genocidal sanctions on the innocent of Iraq. My continuation would have implied my complicity in human catastrophe. And, in addition, my innate sense of justice was outraged as yours would have been in my position by the violence that UN sanctions had brought upon the lives and wellbeing of children, families, and the many loved ones of Iraq. There can be no justification for killing the young, the aged, the sick, the rich, the poor anywhere, under any circumstances, least of all by the United Nations.
Some will tell you that the Iraqi leadership was punishing the Iraqi people. That was not my perception or experience when living in Baghdad in 1997-98 and traveling throughout the country. And were that to be the case, how could that possibly justify collective punishment that is sanctions, by the United Nations? The UN Charter and international law have no provision for the murderous consequences of a UN embargo, over 12 long years in the case of the people of Iraq.
After leaving, sometimes I explained the impact of sanctions to the media, and to university and public meetings by describing Iraqi children as being on death row without hope of reprieve. By the end of 1998, we the UN had killed hundreds of thousands without any apparent hesitation on the part of the permanent member states of the Security Council.
The illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 has only worsened the overall situation for Iraqi children, women and men. Contrary to what the mainstream media has been and is reporting, a whole nation is being terrorized, killed, driven into exile. The humanitarian situation in Iraq is catastrophic according to the ICRC (The Red Cross) and other international organizations. American imposition of democracy and freedom has failed as law, order and economic and social wellbeing is increasingly elusive. Health and educational systems are about to collapse; the human rights situation is disastrous; human security and opportunities have vanished; the fearful, the refugees and the displaced outnumber those enjoying normal lives.(link)

Hans von Sponeck replaced Mr. Halliday in 1998 but also resigned his position in disgust 2 years later saying - “How long should the civilian population of Iraq be exposed to such punishment for something they have never done?”

When asked on US television if she [Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: “This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.”

The sanctions imposed were evil, horrible, and vicious in there nature. The figure of 500,000 dead children originated from a Unicef report on infant mortality in sanctions-era Iraq. The US State Dept commented at the time that the sanctions where “the toughest, most comprehensive sanctions in history”. Apart from targeting imports and exports of all sorts of everyday stuff in and out of the country, they also focused on food, medical supplies and their water system which is against article 54 of the Geneva Convention. The UN has never formally adopted the Geneva Convention in its entirety which is a loophole they ruthlessly exposed as they implicated those murderous sanctions.

robtri

WakeUp wrote: »

I can yeah, I don’t really want to derail the thread anymore apologies for going off topic here OP, will give you a few quick examples though.
The US and British were the chief architects and administrators of the crippling UN sanctions directed against Iraq from the early 90’s up to the illegal, immoral lie based invasion of 2003.

These are the comments of Denis Halliday, an Irishman, who was the former UN Assistant Secretary General and the UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq 1997-98. He resigned his position in 1998 after 34 years in the UN.

Accepting the Gandhi International Peace Award in 2003, I explained my resignation from the United Nations as head of the UN Humanitarian Program in Iraq at the end of 1998. I indicated that resignation was necessary because of my refusal to accept Security Council orders that continued to impose genocidal sanctions on the innocent of Iraq. My continuation would have implied my complicity in human catastrophe. And, in addition, my innate sense of justice was outraged as yours would have been in my position by the violence that UN sanctions had brought upon the lives and wellbeing of children, families, and the many loved ones of Iraq. There can be no justification for killing the young, the aged, the sick, the rich, the poor anywhere, under any circumstances, least of all by the United Nations.
Some will tell you that the Iraqi leadership was punishing the Iraqi people. That was not my perception or experience when living in Baghdad in 1997-98 and traveling throughout the country. And were that to be the case, how could that possibly justify collective punishment that is sanctions, by the United Nations? The UN Charter and international law have no provision for the murderous consequences of a UN embargo, over 12 long years in the case of the people of Iraq.
After leaving, sometimes I explained the impact of sanctions to the media, and to university and public meetings by describing Iraqi children as being on death row without hope of reprieve. By the end of 1998, we the UN had killed hundreds of thousands without any apparent hesitation on the part of the permanent member states of the Security Council.
The illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 has only worsened the overall situation for Iraqi children, women and men. Contrary to what the mainstream media has been and is reporting, a whole nation is being terrorized, killed, driven into exile. The humanitarian situation in Iraq is catastrophic according to the ICRC (The Red Cross) and other international organizations. American imposition of democracy and freedom has failed as law, order and economic and social wellbeing is increasingly elusive. Health and educational systems are about to collapse; the human rights situation is disastrous; human security and opportunities have vanished; the fearful, the refugees and the displaced outnumber those enjoying normal lives.(link)

Hans von Sponeck replaced Mr. Halliday in 1998 but also resigned his position in disgust 2 years later saying - “How long should the civilian population of Iraq be exposed to such punishment for something they have never done?”

When asked on US television if she [Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: “This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.”

The sanctions imposed were evil, horrible, and vicious in there nature. The figure of 500,000 dead children originated from a Unicef report on infant mortality in sanctions-era Iraq. The US State Dept commented at the time that the sanctions where “the toughest, most comprehensive sanctions in history”. Apart from targeting imports and exports of all sorts of everyday stuff in and out of the country, they also focused on food, medical supplies and their water system which is against article 54 of the Geneva Convention. The UN has never formally adopted the Geneva Convention in its entirety which is a loophole they ruthlessly exposed as they implicated those murderous sanctions.

last comment on this as it is a bit OT...
thats an opinion piece... shows or proves nothing

Mahatma coat

Its a First hand Eye Witness Account of the Damage the Sanctons caused in Iraq.

Was Mr Haliday in a positon to give an informed Opinion???????

robtri

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Was Mr Haliday in a positon to give an informed Opinion???????

imho... NO

he was there looks like less than a Year as a rep for the UN.. which means he was shown all the stuff saddam wanted him to see...

WakeUp

robtri wrote: »

last comment on this as it is a bit OT...
thats an opinion piece... shows or proves nothing

I dont see how it is over the top at all and to be honest Robtri with all due respect I'm going to take Hallidays, Van Sponeck and Unicef's word over yours any day of the week with regard to sanctions-era Iraq.

robtri

WakeUp wrote: »

I dont see how it is over the top at all and to be honest Robtri with all due respect I'm going to take Hallidays, Van Sponeck and Unicef's word over yours any day of the week with regard to sanctions-era Iraq.

i havent given any words or opinions on the sanctions....
i asked for support on how they effected and killed thousands and thousands... and the evidence is an opinion piece

i personally have no idea the effects of the sanctions and am curious to know more..

WakeUp

Have a read of this Robtri if you get a chance will give you an idea of what the sanctions entailed. (link)