Huffington Post: Clinton Aide: "Let Iraq shoot down a plane to start war"

[Soul Crusher]

Jason Linkins jason@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting Become a Fan Get Email Alerts from this Reporter    
Gen. Hugh Shelton: Clinton Official Suggested Letting U.S. Plane Be Shot Down To Provoke War With Iraq
First Posted: 10-15-10 01:40 PM   |   Updated: 10-15-10 02:19 PM
www.huffingtonpost.com

________________________ ______




In the publicity sheet that St. Martin's Press has been sending out to spur interest in General Hugh Shelton's new memoir, Without Hesitation: The Odyssey of an American Warrior, the last highlight is a doozy: "A high-ranking cabinet member suggests intentionally flying an American airplane on a low pass over Baghdad so as to guarantee it will be shot down, thus creating a natural excuse to reltaliate and go to war."

Turns out the incident took place during the Clinton administration, and Shelton's response to the suggestion...well, let's just say it more than lives up to the title of the memoir.

Over at Salon's War Room, Justin Elliott has the specifics.

Shelton sets the scene at a "small, weekly White House breakfast" that served as regular "informal" meetings that "encouraged brainstorming of potential options on a variety of issues."

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."



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."


RELATED:
Clinton aide's idea: Let Iraq shoot down U.S. plane [War Room]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Get HuffPost Politics On Twitter, Facebook, and Google Buzz! Subscribe to the new HuffPost Hill newsletter! Know something we don't? E-mail us at huffpolitics@huffingtonpost.com

________________________ ________________________ __________


wow.  

[OzmO]

So what?

[Soul Crusher]

So what?

Bush has been accused of being war criminal for lying about WMD by many people - yet when its a democrat its no big deal? 

[Dos Equis]

"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."

Hahaha!  

[Soul Crusher]

Hahaha!  

Of course the far left won't say shit about this. 

[240 is Back]

clinton didn't have the balls for it.  bush did.

[SAMSON123]

Jason Linkins jason@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting Become a Fan Get Email Alerts from this Reporter    
Gen. Hugh Shelton: Clinton Official Suggested Letting U.S. Plane Be Shot Down To Provoke War With Iraq
First Posted: 10-15-10 01:40 PM   |   Updated: 10-15-10 02:19 PM
www.huffingtonpost.com

________________________ ______




In the publicity sheet that St. Martin's Press has been sending out to spur interest in General Hugh Shelton's new memoir, Without Hesitation: The Odyssey of an American Warrior, the last highlight is a doozy: "A high-ranking cabinet member suggests intentionally flying an American airplane on a low pass over Baghdad so as to guarantee it will be shot down, thus creating a natural excuse to reltaliate and go to war."

Turns out the incident took place during the Clinton administration, and Shelton's response to the suggestion...well, let's just say it more than lives up to the title of the memoir.

Over at Salon's War Room, Justin Elliott has the specifics.

Shelton sets the scene at a "small, weekly White House breakfast" that served as regular "informal" meetings that "encouraged brainstorming of potential options on a variety of issues."

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."



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."


RELATED:
Clinton aide's idea: Let Iraq shoot down U.S. plane [War Room]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Get HuffPost Politics On Twitter, Facebook, and Google Buzz! Subscribe to the new HuffPost Hill newsletter! Know something we don't? E-mail us at huffpolitics@huffingtonpost.com

________________________ ________________________ __________


wow.  

WAIT A MINUTE...

we have discussed the Gulf Of Tonkin, False Attack On Japan, Korean War, Spanish American War and the Northwoods Documents which dealt with america desiring to attack Cuba by blowing up one of its own airplanes and blaming Cuba for doing it and YOU 3 argued against all of these tactics america used to instigate war and yet you are impressed by this?

[OzmO]

Bush has been accused of being war criminal for lying about WMD by many people - yet when its a democrat its no big deal? 

the difference is............


In the form of a question:

who actually went to war?

[Dos Equis]

Of course the far left won't say shit about this. 

Of course not. 

[OzmO]

Of course the far left won't say shit about this. 

Because there is nothing to say.  Every administration I am sure has time and poeple who talk of all kinds of crap.  the difference is what they actually do.

What did Clinton actually do?

What did Bush actually do?

End of story, thread point falls flat.

 

[Soul Crusher]

Because there is nothing to say.  Every administration I am sure has time and poeple who talk of all kinds of crap.  the difference is what they actually do.

What did Clinton actually do?

What did Bush actually do?

End of story, thread point falls flat.

 

Difference is a little incident that took place in NYC after nearly a decade of not taking terrorism seriously. 

[Dos Equis]

Because there is nothing to say.  Every administration I am sure has time and poeple who talk of all kinds of crap.  the difference is what they actually do.

What did Clinton actually do?

What did Bush actually do?

End of story, thread point falls flat.

 

I wouldn't say that.  I'd certainly want to know if our leaders discussed the possibility of doing something illegal, whether they actually did it or not.  Not irrelevant at all IMO.

[OzmO]

I wouldn't say that.  I'd certainly want to know if our leaders discussed the possibility of doing something illegal, whether they actually did it or not.  Not irrelevant at all IMO.

But you won't unless its leaked.  I am sure lots of things are said or suggested all the time.   

Comparing something that was suggested with something that actually happened is meaningless.

[OzmO]

Difference is a little incident that took place in NYC after nearly a decade of not taking terrorism seriously. 

That's a spun belief.

As i said, so what?  The bush administration actually went to war.  What someone suggested in a administration 10+ years ago is meaningless especially considering what happen afterward.

[Dos Equis]

But you won't unless its leaked.  I am sure lots of things are said or suggested all the time.   

Comparing something that was suggested with something that actually happened is meaningless.

The only way we ever usually find out is if someone sells a book or is charged with a crime.  

I'm not really comparing it to anything, but I don't see a problem with 33 making the comparison.  I agree discussing illegal activity isn't the same as actually doing it, but it does take a level of corruption to even contemplate doing very bad things.  

[kcballer]

Clinton Aide.  Interesting that Clinton didn't say it yet he's now being treated like he did? 

[Soul Crusher]

Clinton Aide.  Interesting that Clinton didn't say it yet he's now being treated like he did? 

I said aide in the title - my guess is that is was albright or berger. 

[kcballer]

I said aide in the title - my guess is that is was albright or berger. 

So what does this directly have to do with Bill Clinton?  He didn't say it, they didn't follow through with it and there i no mention of Bill ever having any knowledge of it. 

[blacken700]

give him a minute it will lead to obama

[Soul Crusher]

So what does this directly have to do with Bill Clinton?  He didn't say it, they didn't follow through with it and there i no mention of Bill ever having any knowledge of it. 

That was the title Huffington Post used. 

[Deicide]

Bush has been accused of being war criminal for lying about WMD by many people - yet when its a democrat its no big deal? 

No, most presidents since the end of WW2 have been war criminals; party affiliation never mattered. Obama is a war criminal just like Bush was, just like Clinton was, just like Bush Sr., just like Reagan, just like Carter, etc...

[Deicide]

The only way we ever usually find out is if someone sells a book or is charged with a crime.  

I'm not really comparing it to anything, but I don't see a problem with 33 making the comparison.  I agree discussing illegal activity isn't the same as actually doing it, but it does take a level of corruption to even contemplate doing very bad things.  

I know you are in denial, but our CIA does illegal things all the time. All facts...that's not corruption, that is just their job.

[Dos Equis]

I know you are in denial, but our CIA does illegal things all the time. All facts...that's not corruption, that is just their job.

What facts show the CIA does illegal things all the time? 

Also, what facts show every president is war criminal? 

[Deicide]

What facts show the CIA does illegal things all the time? 

Also, what facts show every president is war criminal? 

Disclosed covert operations that violate international treaties for the CIA. The one that started most of this mess in the Mideast in 1953 has long been public. It was in the report that the CIA coined the term 'blowback' for the first time. If you want to see them, I can easily provide links.

Prosecuting wars without congressional approval, even if 'minor' is considered a war crime. When Bush Sr. decided he had enough of his puppet gone stray in Panama we invaded and wreaked havoc in the country; dozens were killed and hundreds were injured. He had no authorisation to do so, apart from his own desire. That is a war crime. Of course you will disagree but you should imagine what it is like if tanks and troops rolled into Hawaii under a foreign power's 'authority' and killed your family and destroyed your home. It is not right and not moral. Panama is just one example. Clinton, Kosovo, etc...Vietnam was a war crime that was carried out under several presidents. It was a crime against the soldiers who were forced to fight it, throwing away their lives for nothing and millions of Vietnamese who were just trying to live their lives. Every country's government does bad stuff, the US is not unique and I am sure I will be called unpatriotic and a traitor and blah, blah but more important than nationalism is a respect for human life in general.

[Dos Equis]

Disclosed covert operations that violate international treaties for the CIA. The one that started most of this mess in the Mideast in 1953 has long been public. It was in the report that the CIA coined the term 'blowback' for the first time. If you want to see them, I can easily provide links.

Prosecuting wars without congressional approval, even if 'minor' is considered a war crime. When Bush Sr. decided he had enough of his puppet gone stray in Panama we invaded and wreaked havoc in the country; dozens were killed and hundreds were injured. He had no authorisation to do so, apart from his own desire. That is a war crime. Of course you will disagree but you should imagine what it is like if tanks and troops rolled into Hawaii under a foreign power's 'authority' and killed your family and destroyed your home. It is not right and not moral. Panama is just one example. Clinton, Kosovo, etc...Vietnam was a war crime that was carried out under several presidents. It was a crime against the soldiers who were forced to fight it, throwing away their lives for nothing and millions of Vietnamese who were just trying to live their lives. Every country's government does bad stuff, the US is not unique and I am sure I will be called unpatriotic and a traitor and blah, blah but more important than nationalism is a respect for human life in general.

No I don't want a link talking about an alleged illegal 1953 operation.  If you have something that deals with present day, from a credible source, I'll read it.    

Your definition of war crimes is not accurate.  The president, as commander in chief, does not need Congressional approval to order our troops to engage in armed conflict.  

Also, if you look at the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, there were Congressional resolutions approving the operations, and numerous Congressional votes funding the operations.  

What specific law or Constitutional provision are you basing your statements on?