One Democratic lawmaker is saying yes.
The Bush administration permitted the world's most notorious terrorist mastermind to escape because it needed additional justification to invade Iraq, according to a Democratic lawmaker from New York.
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) leveled the allegation during an interview with MSNBC host David Shuster on Monday afternoon.
"Look what happened with regard to our invasion into Afghanistan, how we apparently intentionally let bin Laden get away," he said. "How we intentionally did not follow the Taliban and al-Qaeda as they were escaping. That was done by the previous administration because they knew very well that if they would capture al-Qaeda, there would be no justification for an invasion in Iraq."
"They deliberately let Osama bin Laden get away?" asked an incredulous Shuster. "They deliberately let the head of al-Qaeda get away right after he, right after the 9/11 attacks? You really believe that?"
"Yes, I do," Hinchey replied. "There's no question about that. The leader of the 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 that they didn't want to capture him."
"...To suggest that they deliberately let Osama bin Laden get away so they could invade Iraq, that will strike a lot of people as crazy," Shuster countered.
"I don't think it will strike a lot of people as crazy," Hinchey said. "I think it will strike a lot of people as 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 Taliban and we could have captured the al-Qaeda. But we didn't, and we didn't because of the need felt by the previous administration and the previous head of the military -- that need to attack Iraq, which is completely unjustified."
Hinchy apparently based his allegations on a recently released Senate report that found then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld rejected calls for reinforcements in December 2001, when the military allegedly had bin Laden trapped in Afghanistan.
"The vast array of American military power, from sniper teams to the most mobile divisions of the marine corps and the army, was kept on the sidelines," the report says.
"Instead, the US command chose to rely on airstrikes and untrained Afghan militias to attack Bin Laden and on Pakistan's loosely organized Frontier Corps to seal his escape routes."
Entitled "Tora Bora revisited: how we failed to get Bin Laden and why it matters today," the report -- commissioned by Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- says Bin Laden expected to die and had even written a will.
"But the Al-Qaeda leader would live to fight another day. Fewer than 100 American commandos were on the scene with their Afghan allies and calls for reinforcements to launch an assault were rejected.
"Requests were also turned down for US troops to block the mountain paths leading to sanctuary a few miles away in Pakistan.
"The decision not to deploy American forces to go after Bin Laden or block his escape was made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his top commander, General Tommy Franks," the report says... [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Raw Story>
Considering that Rumsfeld’s ethical standards are so low that he was not only the person who brokered the deal whereby Saddam first acquired chemical weapons, but also the point man for torture at US military installations, I would not put it past him. And since the Bush/GOP regime started planning the Iraq invasion before the 9/11 /2001 attack, Hinchey has a point that killing or capturing Osama would have stifled those plans. What’s your take on this?
18 comments:
I strongly suspect this allegation may have a great deal of merit. Let us not forget that Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz, among others, were all charter members of the mid '90s neocon think tank "Project For A New American Century", which openly advocated the inasion and occupation of Iraq, Syria, and Iran. Let's face it: all of these guys are paranoids, and proven pathological liars, and war profiteers as well. Their unprovoked attack on Iraq and their nifty awarding of billions in non-bid military contracts to friendly contractors establishes their guilt as war criminals, and they should be tried, convicted, and sentenced accordingly.
Just passing by to say hi ........ HI!
Jack, I have been cdalling for their incarceration for a very long time. maybe someday...
Hi Monique.
I always suspected this was the case. Otherwise, if they would have captured OBL, they wouldn't have their 'boogie man' to hold over the American people's head and to justify the Iraq war, which was being planned when they first got into office.
I believe they intentionally let OBL go, just for those two justifications.
Didn't Clinton have a shot at him?
And the lynching of Saddam Hussein, a leader of a sovereign, country, while himself certainly a monster, was hardly commented upon.
Our government would never stoop to such tactics in order to consolidate their hold on things. Saint Ronnie is spinning in his grave at the foot of the City on a Hill.
Like Geronimo, as a U. S. Army scout, Osama must certainly have been on the CIA payroll all the while. Just check his paystubs.
Meanhile, to do a one-eighty, Why are we sending even more troops to Afghanistan? This might limit poor Mr. Obama to a one-term presidency.
As went Johnson on Vietnam, so will Mr. Obama go on Afghanistan
I forget what antique British parliamentarian has said it, but about the new troop surge in Afghanistan (can't stop it now),I would say to the Obama administration, "Think yet, ladies and gentlemen that you could be wrong."
Oddly, signs with a similar cryptic message are popping up all over Louisiana right now.
There should have been more in other states.People might have gotten the message. Ne ultra mas in Afghanistan.
Jeremiah was no bullfrog.
And nobody heard the croak.
This is old news about OBL, and Tora Bora. It was written about in numerous books. What needs to be investigated further are OBL's activities in Sudan, and Pakistan Before 9/11.
Karen; You are correct. Bubba had several occasions to hit OBL. They were called off at the last minute. One was because the administration was worried about collateral damage. The collateral damage were elite members belonging to the families of the gulf opec members that were with OBL on a falcon hunting trip in the middle of the efffen desert.
So do I, Lisa.
Karen, Clinton launched a cruise missile at his training base in Afghanistan. Osama was already gone, and several civilians were killed. The GOP raised holy hell with him for attacking a sovereign nation.
Ivan, the US gave him $30 million to set up Al Qaeda to perpetrate terrorist acts against the Russians. It's ironic that the Reagan/Bush I/GOP investment in terrorism developed into the worst act of terrorism this country has suffered.
RZ, I know. I have been saying that Bush needed a poster child for terrorism for several years now, but you miss the point. What makes this news is that a member of Congress is recognizing this publicly for the first time. See my reply to Karen.
TC; Lets not forget that the Mujahadeen was set up mainly by ZBIG a Democrat Party Patriarch. . After the Russians left, so did we.
TomCat and realityZone,
How you both elucidate!
Historically the American military has rarely been allowed to complete the job.
This was Patton's complaint.
This was Westmoreland's complaint.
This was Schwarzcopf's complaint.
While I don't doubt that the chase was called off to give them a supposed reason to invade a sovereign nation, simply because that is how the cheney/bush administration is being proven to have operated. There is past historical precedent.
RZ, wille that's true, Zbig made the mistake of going through the ISI who recruited fanatic MJ who became the Taliban. OBL was strictly a GOP project, as was abandoning the country when the Russians left.
Thanks, Ivan.
Mark that'sa good point, but part of the military problem is that to them, the solution to all dillemas is war. I eonder what would have happened had Patton gotten his way?
What would have happened had Schwarzkopf been allowed to topple Baghdad and Saddam in '90?
walking man; sadam did not state he was going to the euro before iraq 1. he did state it though before iraq 2. papa bush knew better.
I think we might stepped into the same crap storm.
Post a Comment