5 ms·

This NPR news doesn't require subscription. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/12/1036389448/biden-declassifies-secret-fbi-report-detailing-saudi-nationals-connection

by acgt 5y ago

This NPR news doesn't require subscription. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/12/1036389448/biden-declassifies-secret-fbi-report-detailing-saudi-nationals-connections-to-9- https://www.npr.org/2021/09/12/1036389448/biden-declassifies... So Saudis has connections with 9/11 terrorists, and Washington invaded Iraq instead?

CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago
As Ron Paul once said (about the Federal Reserve), "If that doesn't make any sense at all to you...then you understand it just fine."
- acgt 5y ago
  I was just suggesting the Iraq war is a mistake.
  - pstuart 5y ago
    As were our misadventures in Afghanistan.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    I have never seen a coherent explanation of what was going through anyone's mind regarding the Iraq war. The nearest I've heard is that Iraq was Bush's idee fixe going into office. (My personal theory was that Bush realized Afghanistan was not going to get him re-elected to a second term.)
    - hindsightbias 5y ago
      There’s only one conspiracy that is logically consistent with the outcome - that Cheney was a witting or unwitting asset of the Iranian regime.
      - atatatat 5y ago
        conspiracy theory**
      - 1024core 5y ago
        Not really. Cheney was under the influence of Ahmad Chalabi, who was a deep Iranian asset. Chalabi's job was to get the US to invade Iraq and dispose of Saddam. He succeeded admirably, and was given an award by Iran.
    - bigodbiel 5y ago
      iirc there were some rumors that Iraq was personal for him because of his father’s handling of it, and subsequent electoral defeat.
    - ProjectArcturis 5y ago
      I think a lot of the Bush folks thought of Saddam as a kind of rogue asset. They'd funded him to attack the Iranians, and then he went off reservation when he invaded Kuwait, and later tried to assassinate HW Bush. They knew he had chemical weapons (because they had sold them to him), and tricked themselves into believing he was developing nukes. 9/11 ramped up the paranoia and gave the Bush administration license to lie their way into war.
      - giantrobot 5y ago
        Prior to the Iraq war Saddam was pressing the UN to lift a bunch of sanctions and courting Russian and European oil companies to come in and run their oil operations. By the time of the invasion Iraq's oil infrastructure had been gutted due to sanctions. This was a complete anathema to the PNAC psychos' vision of the Middle East [0]. They basically wanted to exact control over the majority share of OPEC producers for power over economic rivals (as they saw them). The PNAC [1] had been pushing for war in the Middle East from their founding in the 90s. They got a lot of buy-in from all the Nixonites in GWB's administration. Rumsfeld set up the Office of Special Plans [2] that stovepiped unvetted intelligence from a bunch of Iraqi expats and exiles to push PNAC narratives to GWB. [0] https://archive.org/details/RebuildingAmericasDefenses https://archive.org/details/RebuildingAmericasDefenses [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans
      - l332mn 5y ago
        The most credible theory in my eyes as to why they needed to invade Iraq, was that Saddam intended to boycott the US dollar, and rather sell Iraq's oil in Euros. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeur... There's a de facto global tacit agreement to sell oil in US dollars - on pain of unilateral sanctions by the US or military intervention by the US military. All countries who deviate from this agreement are in fact deemed enemies of the US. This includes, Iran, Venezuela, Russia and China, and (formely) Iraq and Libya. When they don't, that means that the US can't simply print dollars as they please and force other countries (who purchases that oil) to purchase US debt as well. Pricing oil in currencies other than the worlds reserve currency (the US dollar) affects the dollar value greatly. The US printed about 10 trillion dollars in two years. The rest of the oil-dependent world pays the price.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
      It's not really a complex mystery. GWB's admin was heavily stacked with people from a particular ideological clique, the Project for a New American Century folks. Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc. These folks had done the essay and speech circuit for well over a decade before 9/11 happened, and were very clear about their perspective and aims. I'd summarize those as: ~"American hegemony is net good for the world, therefor the US should not hesitate to use military power, unilaterally, to reshape the world towards US interests, without apology." These are people that rejected any concept of a collaborative or consensus based world order among peer powers, consent of those governed but subjects of a weaker state, etc, vs the US becoming a benevolent in their imagination unipolar power. They'd spent most of the 90s writing essays about why the US should just straight up depose Saddam and allow US private interests to take over all Iraqi oil infrastructure. These people had an extremely hawkish take on US foreign policy and it's undeniable that 9/11 dropped a giant present right in their lap. They did exactly what they'd already told the world they wanted to do as a response just using 9/11 as a new justification. The only real surprise is they failed to convince everyone on taking over Iran too. As for GWB himself, it's not clear what his personal views were other than he stacked his admin full of these people and clearly trusted them. The argument that he had a personal grudge vs Saddam due to his father makes perfect sense and would be an easy way to persuade him personally.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Ron Paul ignores the entirely possible alternative of "you may just be an idiot", though.
tpmx 5y ago
It's pretty widely accepted by now that the premise for Iraq 2.0 was manufactured by the GWB administration. Regarding 9/11: I think Cheney was pulling the shots and knowingly and cynically ignored all of those glaring warnings, thinking they'd get maybe a small attack somewhere with a smaller number of US deaths, which would sort of be the cost of doing business in the middle east, and that this could be politically expedient in the context of his larger vision on how to deal with "the Iraq/Saddam problem", and in the larger picture morally "fine". Btw: Dick Cheney is actually still around. How he and GWB never were indicted is beyond me. Don't get me started on the GWB PR rehabilitation campaign that has been ongoing during the the past ~6 years.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- joconde 5y ago
  > I think Cheney was pulling the shots and knowingly and cynically ignored all of those glaring warnings, thinking they'd get maybe a small attack somewhere with a smaller number of US deaths Did he have so much control that he could suppress intelligence about an attack? I know he was pretty powerful for a vice president, but it sounds weird to me that one guy who isn't even in command could do that. Note I'm not American and don't know that much about that period.
  - tpmx 5y ago
    He was a very unusual vice president. Often described as the most powerful american VP ever. It's not clear that GWB was in control of these aspects during his presidency. You should watch Vice (2018). That movie really made a shitload of sense to me after following politics closely since a bit before the Bush/Gore election in 2000.
  - rasz 5y ago
    He shot an attorney in the face, with a shotgun, and had the victim apologize to him https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/18/usa.dickcheney https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/18/usa.dickcheney "Harry Whittington, the Republican lawyer shot by Dick Cheney in a hunting accident in Texas last weekend, emerged from hospital yesterday and apologised to the vice-president for all the trouble the shooting had caused."
api 5y ago
Back then I was fond of saying that if George W Bush were president during Pearl Harbor we would have declared "War on Aerial Bombing" and invaded Korea.
aagha 5y ago
I'm hoping to God that question was being asked sarcastically.
Iv 5y ago
No, Washington invaded Afghanistan, despite arguably Rumsfeld wanting to target Iraq at first, but being told they did not have a case. 911 hijackers were Saudis and Osama Bin Laden was Saudi but it was decided to not look at KSA at all. This was known to the Bush adminsitration who censored any mention of KSA from the 911 reports: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_28_pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_28_pages The GOP has always been a supporter of foreign and domestic terrorism. Them posing as antiterrorists is the biggest con of the 21st century.

by acgt 5y ago

CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago

As Ron Paul once said (about the Federal Reserve), "If that doesn't make any sense at all to you...then you understand it just fine."

acgt 5y ago
I was just suggesting the Iraq war is a mistake.
- pstuart 5y ago
  As were our misadventures in Afghanistan.
- mcguire 5y ago
  I have never seen a coherent explanation of what was going through anyone's mind regarding the Iraq war. The nearest I've heard is that Iraq was Bush's idee fixe going into office. (My personal theory was that Bush realized Afghanistan was not going to get him re-elected to a second term.)
  - hindsightbias 5y ago
    There’s only one conspiracy that is logically consistent with the outcome - that Cheney was a witting or unwitting asset of the Iranian regime.
    - atatatat 5y ago
      conspiracy theory**
    - 1024core 5y ago
      Not really. Cheney was under the influence of Ahmad Chalabi, who was a deep Iranian asset. Chalabi's job was to get the US to invade Iraq and dispose of Saddam. He succeeded admirably, and was given an award by Iran.
  - bigodbiel 5y ago
    iirc there were some rumors that Iraq was personal for him because of his father’s handling of it, and subsequent electoral defeat.
  - ProjectArcturis 5y ago
    I think a lot of the Bush folks thought of Saddam as a kind of rogue asset. They'd funded him to attack the Iranians, and then he went off reservation when he invaded Kuwait, and later tried to assassinate HW Bush. They knew he had chemical weapons (because they had sold them to him), and tricked themselves into believing he was developing nukes. 9/11 ramped up the paranoia and gave the Bush administration license to lie their way into war.
    - giantrobot 5y ago
      Prior to the Iraq war Saddam was pressing the UN to lift a bunch of sanctions and courting Russian and European oil companies to come in and run their oil operations. By the time of the invasion Iraq's oil infrastructure had been gutted due to sanctions. This was a complete anathema to the PNAC psychos' vision of the Middle East [0]. They basically wanted to exact control over the majority share of OPEC producers for power over economic rivals (as they saw them). The PNAC [1] had been pushing for war in the Middle East from their founding in the 90s. They got a lot of buy-in from all the Nixonites in GWB's administration. Rumsfeld set up the Office of Special Plans [2] that stovepiped unvetted intelligence from a bunch of Iraqi expats and exiles to push PNAC narratives to GWB. [0] https://archive.org/details/RebuildingAmericasDefenses https://archive.org/details/RebuildingAmericasDefenses [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans
    - l332mn 5y ago
      The most credible theory in my eyes as to why they needed to invade Iraq, was that Saddam intended to boycott the US dollar, and rather sell Iraq's oil in Euros. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeur... There's a de facto global tacit agreement to sell oil in US dollars - on pain of unilateral sanctions by the US or military intervention by the US military. All countries who deviate from this agreement are in fact deemed enemies of the US. This includes, Iran, Venezuela, Russia and China, and (formely) Iraq and Libya. When they don't, that means that the US can't simply print dollars as they please and force other countries (who purchases that oil) to purchase US debt as well. Pricing oil in currencies other than the worlds reserve currency (the US dollar) affects the dollar value greatly. The US printed about 10 trillion dollars in two years. The rest of the oil-dependent world pays the price.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
    It's not really a complex mystery. GWB's admin was heavily stacked with people from a particular ideological clique, the Project for a New American Century folks. Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc. These folks had done the essay and speech circuit for well over a decade before 9/11 happened, and were very clear about their perspective and aims. I'd summarize those as: ~"American hegemony is net good for the world, therefor the US should not hesitate to use military power, unilaterally, to reshape the world towards US interests, without apology." These are people that rejected any concept of a collaborative or consensus based world order among peer powers, consent of those governed but subjects of a weaker state, etc, vs the US becoming a benevolent in their imagination unipolar power. They'd spent most of the 90s writing essays about why the US should just straight up depose Saddam and allow US private interests to take over all Iraqi oil infrastructure. These people had an extremely hawkish take on US foreign policy and it's undeniable that 9/11 dropped a giant present right in their lap. They did exactly what they'd already told the world they wanted to do as a response just using 9/11 as a new justification. The only real surprise is they failed to convince everyone on taking over Iran too. As for GWB himself, it's not clear what his personal views were other than he stacked his admin full of these people and clearly trusted them. The argument that he had a personal grudge vs Saddam due to his father makes perfect sense and would be an easy way to persuade him personally.
ceejayoz 5y ago
Ron Paul ignores the entirely possible alternative of "you may just be an idiot", though.

tpmx 5y ago

It's pretty widely accepted by now that the premise for Iraq 2.0 was manufactured by the GWB administration. Regarding 9/11: I think Cheney was pulling the shots and knowingly and cynically ignored all of those glaring warnings, thinking they'd get maybe a small attack somewhere with a smaller number of US deaths, which would sort of be the cost of doing business in the middle east, and that this could be politically expedient in the context of his larger vision on how to deal with "the Iraq/Saddam problem", and in the larger picture morally "fine". Btw: Dick Cheney is actually still around. How he and GWB never were indicted is beyond me. Don't get me started on the GWB PR rehabilitation campaign that has been ongoing during the the past ~6 years.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
joconde 5y ago
> I think Cheney was pulling the shots and knowingly and cynically ignored all of those glaring warnings, thinking they'd get maybe a small attack somewhere with a smaller number of US deaths Did he have so much control that he could suppress intelligence about an attack? I know he was pretty powerful for a vice president, but it sounds weird to me that one guy who isn't even in command could do that. Note I'm not American and don't know that much about that period.
- tpmx 5y ago
  He was a very unusual vice president. Often described as the most powerful american VP ever. It's not clear that GWB was in control of these aspects during his presidency. You should watch Vice (2018). That movie really made a shitload of sense to me after following politics closely since a bit before the Bush/Gore election in 2000.
- rasz 5y ago
  He shot an attorney in the face, with a shotgun, and had the victim apologize to him https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/18/usa.dickcheney https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/18/usa.dickcheney "Harry Whittington, the Republican lawyer shot by Dick Cheney in a hunting accident in Texas last weekend, emerged from hospital yesterday and apologised to the vice-president for all the trouble the shooting had caused."

api 5y ago

Back then I was fond of saying that if George W Bush were president during Pearl Harbor we would have declared "War on Aerial Bombing" and invaded Korea.

aagha 5y ago

I'm hoping to God that question was being asked sarcastically.

Iv 5y ago

No, Washington invaded Afghanistan, despite arguably Rumsfeld wanting to target Iraq at first, but being told they did not have a case. 911 hijackers were Saudis and Osama Bin Laden was Saudi but it was decided to not look at KSA at all. This was known to the Bush adminsitration who censored any mention of KSA from the 911 reports: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_28_pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_28_pages The GOP has always been a supporter of foreign and domestic terrorism. Them posing as antiterrorists is the biggest con of the 21st century.