The following is an article I submitted to a so-called progressive website. This is the argument that I think could persuade those who would most
resist the idea of government complicity
_javascript:icon('

')The Real Link between Iraq and 9/11
“Just 10 days after Mr Bush's inauguration and eight months before September 11 2001, removing Saddam Hussein was "Topic A" on the president's
list of priorities, according to Mr O'Neill: "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying: 'Go find me a
way to do this'," he told CBS television.”
news.ft.com.../StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1073280975534&p=1012571727088
The recent revelations by Paul O’Neil that the Bush administration had sought to invade Iraq since the very start of its term have rightly been
seized upon by the left and members of the alternative press as proof of its reckless and dishonest leadership. However, there is a much greater
significance to the statements when one sees it the context of the Bush administration’s actions, actions such as the steadfast opposition to the
creation of the 9/11 investigative panel, its continued stonewalling of document requests. Or the fact that many of the signers of the PNAC document
speaking of the public’s reluctance to enter foreign wars, absent a catalyzing event on the scale of Pearl Harbor, have been involved with the
formulation of Bush’s foreign policy. That on the very day of the attacks, military analysts, such as Wesley Clark, were pressured to link the attacks
to Iraq.
The fact that planning for an invasion of Iraq was started well in advance of 9/11 should call into question most of the statements made by officials
to explain their need for war. We were taking the fight to the terrorists, before the fight came to our cities. Rumsfeld claimed that he was looking
at the same intelligence on Iraq “through post-9/11 eyes.” Whether or not Iraq was involved with 9/11- we were told- the purpose of the war was to
stop the next terrorist plot against America in its tracks; to prevent another 9/11 style attack.
What becomes apparent is that 9/11 did not alter the administration’s plans for Iraq, but 9/11 did terrify the population enough to support a war
they would not have otherwise. When one sees the true chronology here there is one inescapable conclusion: for a President determined to take over
Iraq, 9/11 was the only thing that made the war possible. ('Go find me a way to do this'?) This is what we must keep in mind when we consider Bush’s
“failure” to protect the country on 9/11. While the country awaits the release of the Kean Commission report- we should consider what we already know
the Bush regime is capable of. Then as more details emerge of the extent to which detailed warnings were ignored- these facts must be examined through
“post-Iraq” eyes. Suddenly LIHOP doesn’t seem so crazy. It might just be the most compelling explanation of what we already know.
-David Arthur Bright
_javascript:icon('

')
ps- I highly recommend the following article- and find it especially helpful for systematically bitch-slapping the arguments of 9-11 conspiracy
skeptics.
9/11 "Conspiracies" and the Defactualisation of Analysis
www.mediamonitors.net...