O'Neill's family files $1 billion lawsuit against Iraq for 9/11
At first viewing, this story evokes scorn or pity--the grieving relatives of former FBI terrorist-chaser John O'Neill, who died in the WTC on 9/11/01, have been duped into believing that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11. O'Neill, of all people, was aware of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda--he'd been chasing them for years, investigating the African embassy bombings and the Cole attack, among others. The lack of support he was getting at the FBI (which is a part of Ashcroft's Justice Department) had finally driven O'Neill to resign and take the job as head of security for the WTC. He'd been there less than two weeks when the planes hit. Surely his family would have known that OBL was the chief suspect to have been the mastermind, not Saddam. If not, it was all over the news back then, anyway. So how could they be so duped?
But then, think about it. Who's running Iraq now? A judgment against Iraq might come out of Halliburton's profits. So right away, the Bush administration becomes the DEFENDANT in the case, and will be tempted to defend Saddam against the charges. This poses all sorts of problems for them (which is a very good thing). Not only will they be testifying in court, under oath, that their evidence tying Saddam and al Qaeda is mostly bunk. They will also be forced to discuss details of what little truth there may be about the connection. And most of that would go back to the late '80's and early '90's, when the US was supporting both the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (the proto-al Qaeda) and Iraq. It would also likely run heavily through Saudi Arabia and the many Bush-family ties to that corrupt and brutal regime.
So O'Neill's family and their lawyer may be on to something big. Either they get a big showy trial which uncovers, under oath, most of the deception and lies that the Bushies have been telling for over two years, or, more likely, they get a huge settlement to shut up about it.
At first viewing, this story evokes scorn or pity--the grieving relatives of former FBI terrorist-chaser John O'Neill, who died in the WTC on 9/11/01, have been duped into believing that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11. O'Neill, of all people, was aware of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda--he'd been chasing them for years, investigating the African embassy bombings and the Cole attack, among others. The lack of support he was getting at the FBI (which is a part of Ashcroft's Justice Department) had finally driven O'Neill to resign and take the job as head of security for the WTC. He'd been there less than two weeks when the planes hit. Surely his family would have known that OBL was the chief suspect to have been the mastermind, not Saddam. If not, it was all over the news back then, anyway. So how could they be so duped?
But then, think about it. Who's running Iraq now? A judgment against Iraq might come out of Halliburton's profits. So right away, the Bush administration becomes the DEFENDANT in the case, and will be tempted to defend Saddam against the charges. This poses all sorts of problems for them (which is a very good thing). Not only will they be testifying in court, under oath, that their evidence tying Saddam and al Qaeda is mostly bunk. They will also be forced to discuss details of what little truth there may be about the connection. And most of that would go back to the late '80's and early '90's, when the US was supporting both the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (the proto-al Qaeda) and Iraq. It would also likely run heavily through Saudi Arabia and the many Bush-family ties to that corrupt and brutal regime.
So O'Neill's family and their lawyer may be on to something big. Either they get a big showy trial which uncovers, under oath, most of the deception and lies that the Bushies have been telling for over two years, or, more likely, they get a huge settlement to shut up about it.
<< Home