Former Colin Powell Chief of Staff: Bush didn't want to get bin Laden

Former Colin Powell Chief of Staff: Bush didn't want to get bin Laden

www.rawstory.com

Former Colin Powell Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson told MSNBC’s Ed Schultz Wednesday that President George W. Bush wasn’t interested in bringing Osama bin Laden to justice.

“I don’t think they really wanted to get bin Laden,” Wilkerson said.

“You could be very cynical and say he didn’t want to get him because once they got him the war was over and that left all the political advantage gone,” he added. “Or you could say that they knew that it was almost an impossibility to get him given what they had done to the intelligence and other aspects of the government that

(visit the link for the full news article)

These are some interesting allegations coming from Lawrence Wilkerson former chief of staff for Collin Powell in a recent TV interview where he claims George Bush, Jr. had no real interest in bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice.

The linked article has the video from the MSNBC's, The Ed Show, where Wilkerson’s speculation is sure to continue to give fuel to the many conspiracy theories surrounding Bin Laden’s death.

A recent concluded ATS poll shows an overwhelming majority of respondents not believing that Osama Bin Laden was killed in the US Raid that the Government is claiming led to his demise.

Wilkerson though waffles on the lack of interest by speculating he wasn’t sure whether Bush was reluctant to go after Bin Laden for fear his capture or death could lead to the end of political support for the War on Terror, or if it was because rolling so many Intelligence and law enforcement agencies, like the CIA, NSA and FBI into the huge Homeland Security Apparatus led to, too many bureaucratic snafus hampering the effectiveness of those organizations to that end.

Whether this is a way to minimize the alleged success of the Government’s claim to have finally gotten Bin Laden for Partisan reasons, or to mitigate the Bush Administrations failure to have gotten Bin Laden and or to possible disclose that he did, or just more Main Stream Media filler for the 24 hour infotainment news circus is anyone’s guess.

With an election year just around the corner, and so much controversy surrounding the alleged assassination we seem destined to hear quite a bit more about the worlds most infamous Outlaw and the political characters here in the United States previously and presently involved in the hunt for him.


www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

It would explain why he got away in the mountains of Tora Bora. I have always suspected that Bush 'let him go' to maintain the idea of the bogeyman out there - so he could get support for the Iraq war. But it's nice to hear an official voice give credence to my suspicions

Well, maybe if it were true. This dude is telling what he THINKS. Not what he knows.

I think the recent capture and assination of OBL is proof-positive that Bush wanted to get him. Hence the intel apparratus that was in place prior to his W.H departure and since then-under Obama.

I think the whole "Blame Bush" went out the windon on May 1st 2011. IMO

And, to be on with ED is a discreditor in itself.

I must have missed it.. what evidence does he have to back the claim?


I think you answered the question in your post. Just too many chiefs and not enough indians (back then anyway). As far as Tora-Bora.... I think CIA and Military people who were on the ground that week would be telling us more. But who knows.

With all the contracts, Bin Laden was a big money maker for Dick Cheney's former company and other companies. Why kill a golden goose.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


It would seem according to news reports at the time that it wasn't just Bin Laden that might have been allowed to escape but much of the Taliban was flown out in a sizeable evacuation of their forces at the time too.

Alleged to have taken hours with thousands of Taliban fighters on the ground on the tarmac of the airport while the initial stages of the air war were scouring the country for targets of opportunity it seems almost impossible to believe such a large scale evacuation by air could have been concluded successfully without being attacked on the runway or the planes shot out of the air.

It certainly does appear to many that killing the "Terrorist Goose that laid the War on Terror Golden Egg" was something the Government certainly didn't want to do and may have been quite remiss in reporting Bin Laden's actual demise if and when it really ever occured.

Thanks for joining in BH.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Within the space of several months, the whole message changed from how important it was to get bin Laden, how much of a threat he was, etc., to:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."

- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Call me crazy, but this was shortly after the FIRST report of bin Laden's death at the tail end of 2001 came to light...and I think fits in well with Steve Pieczenik's claims that the body was already on ice and just waiting for a need of political expediency. How can he so suddenly become a non-issue unless the game has changed?

reply to post by anon72


It is hear say and speculation and there is no doubt about it.

Sadly though the present Administrations handling of the matter as far as presenting full disclosure to the public and press of all the pertinent data and evidence is quickly leading to a media market where speculation is running rife.

While at first it was just partisan stations like Fox Networks calling for full disclosure of the photagraphic evidence to back up the claims, since then even organizations like the Associated Press and NPR (National Public Radio) have begun demanding proof that Bin Laden is actually dead from the administration.

So the only thing we have on May 01, 2011 is another media circus occuring regarding the War on Terror and some flimsy excuses to divide the American populace into partisan bickering and a wide range of conspiracy theories.

It seems to many of us no matter what party or leader is in office and associated with the hunt for Bin Laden and executing the War on Terror that they all qualify as the "Can't Shoot Straight Gang".

reply to post by Praetorius


The overwhelming majority of ATS per the recently concluded poll as well as myself tends to agree with you.

It was most suspect indeed when and where as you point out, Bush became to declare Osama Bin Laden as irrelevant even though most of us know that linquists really insist there is no such word, but should have said not relevant.

So it really was a haphazard and inconsistent approach that went from wanted Dead or Alive you can't run, you can't hide mister, to ah who cares about him any way.

I tend to think Bin Laden met an ugly death early on, and that they didn't freeze the body but burried it under a mountain of rubble, but took some DNA to make the DNA claim and froze that.

Great post, thanks for joining in.

If Bush had listened to his intelligence chief, 9/11 may never have happened. Bush epic failure was nothing short of treasonable.

When the intelligence community was sounding the alarm over an impending attack from AQ in the months prior to 9/11, this is what Bush had to say:

The alarming August 6, 2001, memo from the CIA to the President -- "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" -- has been widely noted in the past few years.

But, also in August, CIA analysts flew to Crawford to personally brief the President -- to intrude on his vacation with face-to-face alerts.

The analytical arm of CIA was in a kind of panic mode at this point. Other intelligence services, including those from the Arab world, were sounding an alarm. The arrows were all in the red. They didn't know the place or time of an attack, but something was coming. The President needed to know.

[...]

He's not much of a reader, this President, and never has been, despite White House efforts to trumpet which serious books he is reading at various times. ... But he's a very good listener and an extremely visual listener. He sizes people up swiftly and aptly, watches them carefully, and trusts his eyes.

[...]

The trap, of course, is that while these tactile, visceral markers can be crucial -- especially in terms of handling the posturing of top officials -- they sometimes are not. The thing to focus on, at certain moments, is what someone says, not who is saying it, or how they're saying it.

And, at an eyeball-to-eyeball intelligence briefing during this urgent summer, George W. Bush seems to have made the wrong choice.

He looked hard at the panicked CIA briefer.

"All right," he said. "You've covered your ass, now."

Read more:
Obama Succeeded Where Bush Failed: Osama Bin Laden Rhetoric And Reality

I've been saying this all along even though my wife disagrees (she says that if the reps knew where bin Laden was they would have used it to win the 2008 election). But it all comes out in the wash I say. My only qualm with this clip is that it seems edited (there's a jump at the 20 second mark). I don't know if thats how it aired or not but i'd really like to see the unedited version.

Originally posted by Praetorius
I think fits in well with Steve Pieczenik's claims that the body was already on ice and just waiting for a need of political expediency.

If they were saving the body to use in a political maneuver, where is the body? Why haven't they trotted it out? They have now claimed that it's at the bottom the ocean. They can't very well use it now...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I find that very suspect too, I think at most they grabbed some DNA samples, the Japanese and Indian press alleged back then in 2001 and 2002 that after Bin Laden was killed in an airstrike in a Tora Bora cave that special forces on the ground identified him and then rigged the cave with explosives to collapse it in such a way that the body could never be found or retrieved afterwards.

It certainly explains the hasty dumping of the body at sea and the lack of video evidence.

I wonder honestly when they show 'select' law makers the 'pictures' privately if they will actually just be a whole lot of pictures of missoirs Franklin and Grant in unsequenced already circulate bills.

Is this the same man who also claims other things about Colin Powell that he never has proof for, particularly things surrounding Able Danger in the transition between Clinton and Bush? Wish he could prove some of his allegations.

From 2006...explaining the seemingly odd decision to disband the task force hunting bin Laden.

C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden

The realignment reflects a view that Al Qaeda is no longer as hierarchical as it once was, intelligence officials said, and a growing concern about Qaeda-inspired groups that have begun carrying out attacks independent of Mr. bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals.

Here an interesting analysis too: Bush’s Lackluster Hunt For Bin Laden

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


You think it's possible that the entire membership of the bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee and the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will be bought off by a Democratic president who the Republicans have been trying to discount for his entire presidency?

I don't think so. If Inhofe could bring Obama down, he would. And he says the pictures are real, they're OBL, and he's dead. www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Indeed a good question. Yet another area I'm not an expert in, but a few ideas come to mind.

Perhaps after so long in storage, there are forensic ways to tell the death was not recent (NO idea if accurate).

Perhaps the whole action in Pakistan was a cover op, the body disposed of was that of an innocent man as some have claimed (not OBL), and the body is still being hid somewhere or otherwise disposed of.

Perhaps it was just being saved so that if someone actually of the terrorist persuasion rose up claiming to be OBL, they could run another op with the actual body as verification, for public proof beyond dispute that he was actually dead and anyone else was a fraud (and this possibility never came to pass before a politically useful point was reached).

Many possible reasons here. I can't claim any are the truth, just that the general idea is what I feel in my bones, especially with the sudden shift away from the importance of OBL until a presidency was having a very hard time.

In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned.

- FDR

Originally posted by anon72
Well, maybe if it were true. This dude is telling what he THINKS. Not what he knows.

I think the recent capture and assination of OBL is proof-positive that Bush wanted to get him. Hence the intel apparratus that was in place prior to his W.H departure and since then-under Obama.

Not so much...

2005: Even Bush shocked by how few resources are being dedicated to the hunt for Bin Laden.
“The Iraq War, meanwhile, has proved to be a black hole for the Americans, devouring men and materiel and absorbing the attention of the brass in Washington. In 2005, the CIA gave President Bush a secret slide show on the hunt for bin Laden. The president was taken aback by the small number of CIA case officers posted to Afghanistan and Pakistan. “Is that all there are?” the president asked, according to a former intelligence official, who declined to be identified discussing White House meetings.”

www.newsweek.com...

Shortly After Taking Office I Directed Leon Panetta, The Director Of The Cia To Make The Capture Or Killing Of Osama Bin Laden the highest priority of the war on terror.......Pres. Obama

MARCH 28 2009: Obama says Bin Laden is in Pakistan, presses for action
.
“PRESIDENT OBAMA bluntly charged that Osama Bin Laden is alive and well and “almost certainly” hiding out in Pakistan – a nation that must do more to hunt down terrorists if it wants America’s aide.” “We will insist that action be taken – one way or another – when we have intelligence about high-level terrorist targets,” Obama said
[Daily News, 3/28/09]

MAY 11 2009: Obama replaces top general in Afghanistan as part of larger effort to step up hunt for Bin Laden.
“Barack Obama replaced his top general in Afghanistan yesterday in an attempt to turn round a war that has been going badly for the US and to step up the hunt for Osama bin Laden.”

[Gaurdian, 5/12/09]

DECEMBER 7, 2009: Obama National Security Advisor James Jones stresses the urgency of finding Bin Laden and speaks “of a renewed campaign to capture or kill him.” [AP, 12/7/09]

thinkprogress.org...

reply to post by ~Lucidity


I agree with you it would be great if a lot of these Beltway Insiders who make the rounds of the News Talk Shows often selling books, or promoting organizations they are now involved with would have more or anything in the way of documented proof.

It's fair to note though that rule number 1 when working as a politician or Washington insider is covering your butt, so I think a lot of what goes on in rarified circles in the upper echelon is all just word of mouth with little committed to documentation and often what is labelled "Classified" or sanatized.

When it comes to sanatizing the communication records that's gotten even easier with emails, especially when they are ether net on closed government servers when no one like ATT or AOL even gets it routed through them to save them on their own.

Proof can be very hard to come by when the people who are involved go to serious and focused lengths to make sure there is no proof at all for what they often discuss and do.

Some food for thought.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

You think it's possible that the entire membership of the bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee and the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will be bought off by a Democratic president who the Republicans have been trying to discount for his entire presidency?

I don't think so. If Inhofe could bring Obama down, he would. And he says the pictures are real, they're OBL, and he's dead. www.abovetopsecret.com...

No not a democratic or republican president could buy them off but some friendly golf club and tennis vacation loving members of the Corporate Lobbyist brigade sure could.

When you consider the trillions spent on defense and how important these fictions are too keeping that money rolling, there is more than one way to prep the beach.

No the President wouldn't function as a bagman, but the corporate lobbyists sure could in advance of the private disclosure.

All these lawmakers regardless of their party are deeply tied to the Military Industrial Complex.

In fact Eisenhower's original unedited text of the famous "Fairwell to America" speech didn't warn about the Military Industrial Complex, but the CONGRESSIONAL Military Industrial Complex.

Advisors begged him to edit the Congressional part out so it wouldn't be so incindiary.

Truth be told.

Thanks my friend.

Colin Powell should be stripped of his military retirement checks and put in Federal Prison for admitting to a felony on National TV.

He said he hires illegal aliens to work on his house instead of hiring Americans. You give him a lush military retirement check and he's been using it to hire illegal aliens from who knows where to work...using that free money you give him to not hire Americans.

Colin Powell's no American.