A Theory From My Congressman

Home for me is in the small town of Owego, New York, where I am represented by Maurice Hinchey (D-NY22). Hinchey for me has always been a mixed bag. He vehemently opposed torture, the Iraq war, supports legalization of marijuana and even took part in the Bush impeachment hearings spearheaded by Dennis Kucinich.

Yet he also voted for Cash for Clunkers, the stimulus package, and TARP, among other legislation that has decimated our economy while growing the state. So when he says something I at least tune an ear to it, and will listen depending on the issue being discussed. So when this came out, I felt the need to do a little research:

Most can view this clip and see it as another Democrat just bashing Bush for the sake of Obama’s troubles, but when one takes a look at some of the conduct of the past administration, it is not hard to see that there is some credence to this assertion. It is now known that when Bush took office fully intending on going into Iraq. In fact it had been discussed two years prior to him taking office. Even Paul O’Neill, Bush’s former Treasury Secretary, stated in an interview with 60 minutes about Ron Suskind’s book The Price of Loyalty that

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic “A” 10 days after the inauguration – eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

However, there could be no action without an excuse to get us there though. So when 9/11 happened the questions of “who dunnit” were first focused at the Iraqi regime. As the reports came in and the data was crunched, it became clear that Iraq had no involvement in the attacks. But a little thing like the truth isn’t going to stop the warhawks from fanning the flames of predetermined battle. Now not only was Saddam a bad guy but now those who had attacked us were in Iraq so we needed to go in there to crush the “threat to America.”

The only way this could be plausible was if Al-Qaeda still existed. As our new president stated last night, between 2001 and 2003 the Afghan War led to the Taliban being uprooted, Al-Qaeda was in shattered remnants, and the country was working towards its first democratic election. But one thing remained: Osama Bin Laden was still on the prowl. How could that be? We sent in our military and yet the mastermind of 9/11 was still running free. Maybe it was because of this:


This is where Hinchey’s idea gains the most plausibility. Why were these Delta Force troops’ missions cancelled when they were so close? As stated in the 60 Minutes piece, they don’t know, and cannot find out, who canceled these operations. But if you ask me it smells a little fishy.

Published in

Post a comment