Rep. Hinchey: Bush Administration 'Intentionally Let bin Laden Get Away' In Order To Justify Iraq War

On Monday afternoon, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-New York) told MSNBC host David Shuster that the Bush administration "intentionally let bin Laden get away" in order to justify the Iraq war.

Hinchey is from a historically Republican district (though it includes Democrat-heavy in places like Woodstock and Ithaca) and his statement seemed to shock Shuster.

"Look what happened. Look what happened with regard to our invasion into Afghanistan. How we apparently intentionally let bin Laden get away. How we intentionally did not follow the Taliban and al Qaeda."

Hinchey alleged that bin Laden was let go because "the previous administration... knew very well that if they would capture al Qaeda there would be no justification for an invasion in Iraq."

Shuster, incredulous, pushed back: "You really believe that?"

"Oh, there's no question about that because the leader of the military operation in the United States called back our military, called them back from going after the head of al Qaeda because there was a sense that they didn't want to capture him."

Shuster began talking over Hinchey: "You can accuse them of malfeasance, you can accuse them of dropping the ball, of having an awful plan, and all of them would be justified, but to suggest that they would deliberately let, deliberately let Osama bin Laden get away so they could justify the war in Iraq... That will strike a lot of people as crazy."

Hinchey leaned back and smiled wrily. "I don't think it'll strike a lot of people as crazy. I think it'll strike a lot of people as very accurate."

He continued to explain his reasoning, but MSNBC ended his segment. Watch the video below:

In 2007, Hinchey was on the Colbert Report's "Better Know a District" in which Colbert told him "you are known as a man who does not take any guff."

Meet the congressman below:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Better Know a District - New York's 22nd - Maurice Hinchey
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor U.S. Speedskating

Comments

[Hannah Tahoma]

I think these accusations held by Representative Hinchey are absolutely ridiculous, and a poor attempt to stir up greater dissent in the Republican party at a time when the Democratic party is facing great conflict. To me, his argument seems largely unfounded, with little if any factual basis. With Obama’s new plan to send troops, this seems like Democrats are scrambling to find reasons to justify his plan when he originally promised to bring the troops home. If they can blame Bush for unjustly starting an unsupported war, they can further the idea that Obama is just carrying out the necessary requirements to end a war that is not his responsibility, when in reality Obama is unable to fulfill the promises he conjured up in his campaign. To say that Bush purposely allowed Bin Laden to get away is ludicrous when his entire goal was strengthening our national security and preventing the threats that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have posed to our country.

[ohpozitive]

Then you are simply uninformed. The Taliban captured Bin Laden and offered to turn him over without conditions in October, 2001: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11

Similarly, Bin Laden was within our grasp in December, 2001, but Rumsfeld refused to provide the additional troops needed to perform the capture: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091129/ap_on_go_co/us_tora_bora_bin_laden;_ylt=AmptxtJo9fOOXQq6j6HI_qus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNxMW4zYmplBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMTI5L3VzX3RvcmFfYm9yYV9iaW5fbGFkZW4EY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwM1BHBvcwMyBHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDc2VuYXRlcmVwb3J0

But even ignoring everything that happened in and before 2001, there are still unanswered questions. Specifically, a retired Colonel and Fox News military analyst said that the U.S. could have killed Bin Laden in 2007, but didn't:

We know, with a 70 percent level of certainty — which is huge in the world of intelligence — that in August of 2007, bin Laden was in a convoy headed south from Tora Bora. We had his butt, on camera, on satellite. We were listening to his conversations. We had the world’s best hunters/killers — Seal Team 6 — nearby. We had the world class Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) coordinating with the CIA and other agencies. We had unmanned drones overhead with missiles on their wings; we had the best Air Force on the planet, begging to drop one on the terrorist. We had him in our sights; we had done it ....Unbelievably, and in my opinion, criminally, we did not kill Usama bin Laden. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304306,00.html

[Garybot]

Is this like the 7 times Clinton intentionally let Bin Laden go because he saw a swing set in the area, and excuses like that?

The cowardice that Bin Laden himself said enabled them to concoct the 9/11 attack (after the additional ignoring of the Cole attack and the pathetic handling of the first World Trade Center attack) ?

[Acharn]

I'm shodked, SHOCKED that anyone could believe this. Next thing you know, people will be saying we invaded Iraq because of the oil!

[beelzabubbleboy]

Thank you Mr Hinchey!

[beelzabubbleboy]

They have decieved us at every turn to the point there is no reason to believe otherwise about anything they have done. Next thing you know we'll find out 911 was a black-op ran by the CIA and Mossad.

[wanderingsalmon]

Just a couple of extremely jinky aspects of the official story, completely verifiable: Building 7, the plane wreck in Penn. that left zero wreckage, the lack of plane debris and the exterior of the Pentagon from photos taken directly after the hit, clearly a large commercial jet did not go through that small hole. Do your homework and 9/11 really stinks of govt. involvement.

[beelzabubbleboy]

Of course they couldnt catch him---it would put a damper on their 'endless war' plans. They wouldnt have had an excuse anymore for our boys to be in Afghanistan guarding the highly profitable poppy fields or in Iraq guarding the oil. You will never see these guys invade ANY country that doesnt have resources that they want.

[Mikeeee]

After the Gulf of Tonkin fiasco, 911 and the ensuing loss of life and treasure (to corporations) is nothing in comparison. To think it couldn't or wouldn't be done again isn't naivete it's denial.

[TimeCr0ss]

This is nothing new at all. It was readily obvious in 2002 when the Bush war machine started shifting its view to Iraq. This is just the first time its been publicly said in awhile.

Check out the Frontline doc "Bush's War"

[1differentdrummer]

What a country, W was both emperor and court jester at the same trime. Only in America.

[Mikeeee]

Bin Laden dead = no patriot act, no homeland security, no fisa bill, no halliburton, kbr, blackwater or a myriad of other wasteful and useless laws and organizations.
What a pleasant thought.

[SusanStoHelit]

IMO, it was deliberate - but not because of any foresight - I don't give Bush nor Cheney that much credit. It was deliberate because they were trying to pretend we could have war without casualties, and going after OBL into those hills would have lead to casualties.

[1differentdrummer]

8,000 foot elevation hills?

[karen1p]

You should not underestimate Cheney and Bushco....even in you think W is a b@foon, his Poppy isn't. That man is one shroud elimin@tor.

[zxrod]

If OBL bled oil I might consider the idea 'crazy', but when every logical path justifying many actions of the previous administration end with $$, it certainly seems feasible. I'm pretty sure Wu Tang's - CREAM was their theme song

[Joethepauper]

Partially correct. Not necessarily just Iraq, but more along the lines of the GWOT (Global War on Terror). If you capture or kill the figurehead of the terr0rist network that poses the greatest threat, in the first battle, the prospects for a long, drawn-out occupation with all the lucrative contracts and military funding are minimized. They wanted to catapult the Pentagon's budget to record levels while allowing no-bid contracts from private contractors who contributed heavily to the GOP (and the Dems, but at a much lower level). Not only do I believe that he was allowed to escape, but I think UBL is an asset as well as a convenient boogeyman. If the CIA didn't create a boogeyman to stoke fear in the population, the population wouldn't agree to giving them almost unlimited funds. They also get funds for black projects through the opium trade. Now that we know that the CIA is funding Karzai's warlord/druglord brother (and Karzai was a UNOCAL executive who was trying to get a pipeline in Afghanistan before the invasion/occupation), we can see clearly how the MI(C)C orchestrates things. I've known their plan since 2001, but I'm glad people are starting to come around almost a decade later. We should heed the advice of Presidents past......especially the ones who served as Generals.

[antiprop1]

Right on Joe:
And remember Project for a New American Century's quote," In order to persuade the American Public that a war on Iraq is needed a single galvanizing event must occur". If history has taught us anything, when political statements like this are made, you better pay attention. Mien Kampf taught us the danger of not taking statements like this at face value.

[karen1p]

Absolutely.....these people were in charge of secret ops in the CIA, why would anyone not think this was deliberate.....probably called Operation Twln T0wers.

[mw21]

I don't know whether or not it was intentional to let OBL escape or not. But it is certainly not rediculous to believe that they may have. The amount of money, power and control involved is an incredible temptation and incentive for unscrupulous leaders. The "insane" thing is that anyone would believe it couldn't happen.

[NoFooling]

Who knows. But nothing could surprise me at this point. We have become an amoral empire.

I wonder how low we have to go before people will stand up against such corruption. Teenagers think the war protesters of the '60s are quaint. Maybe they are right. Those protesters are busy trying to rescue their retirement accounts from their peers, the robber barons of wall st. No one seems to have the time or motivation to really step up and ask the big questions and force our representatives to take a stand on anything at all (unless it involves declaring a random day as a commercial holiday).

[karen1p]

Our kids are questioning our government....they are too busy with their WIIs, the mall, etc. The corporate consumption media has trained them well.