5 ms·

My memory of the post 9-11 investigation: Weeks 0-3: The investigation can lead anywhere as long as it does not lead to Saudia Arabia. Weeks 3+: The investig

by BMc2020 4y ago

My memory of the post 9-11 investigation: Weeks 0-3: The investigation can lead anywhere as long as it does not lead to Saudia Arabia. Weeks 3+: The investigation can lead anywhere as long as it leads to Iraq.

toolz 4y ago
Rumsfeld had openly started planning for attacks on Iraq within 5-6 hours of the pentagon being struck by flight 77.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  As well he should. Iraq was one of the major suspects, especially that early. Having those plans, and preferably to never use them, is the very job of the defense department.
  - toolz 4y ago
    What are you talking about? There never was, nor has there ever been evidence that Hussein orchestrated 9/11 attacks and Rumsfeld mentions targeting him specifically even in light of only having evidence that bin Laden was involved. Plane hits pentagon 9:37am by 2:40pm Rumsfeld is quoted in notes > "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.
    - bayesian_horse 4y ago
      I didn't say there was. But when the culprits weren't clear, Iraq was a legitimate suspect for a time.
      - toolz 4y ago
        Let me get this straight. There was very little evidence and the evidence we did have didn't point to Iraq, but they were a legitimate suspect? You have to realize how this sounds, but I'll keep an open mind to interpreting what you're saying hospitably if you'd like to explain your reasoning.
        bayesian_horse 4y ago
        Maybe "suspect" means more to you than it does to me.
        toolz 4y ago
        Maybe, that's why I'm hoping you'll explain what you mean.
      - q1w2 4y ago
        It was never unclear. The Administration knew the same day that it was Al-Quaeda. One of the stewardesses on the first plane to hit the tower called and told the control tower the seats the hijackers were in (2A & B), which led to their identification and connections to al-quaeda - same DAY.
        bayesian_horse 4y ago
        I mean I may be wrong about this. Still I don't see evidence that it was clear on that day that Saddam Hussein was not responsible in any way. Saddam Hussein had motives to act against the US, did so in the past, and I really doubt that they had conclusive evidence Saddam Hussein didn't and would never work with Al-Qaeda. The very job of the DOD is to have such attack plans in the drawer. That's all I'm going to say on this.
bayesian_horse 4y ago
I don't remember a direct link being made between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. There always was mumbling about Saddam supporting terrorism, and Iraq being part of generally the same problem. Not exactly a wrong supposition, though the conclusion was quite disastrous.
- thematrixturtle 4y ago
  The GP's point is that 9/11 was turned into an excuse to invade Iraq, even though there was no actual connection.
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    My feeling (I'm not an American) is that America got attacked and partly lost its mind and partly just had to lash out at somebody in retaliation to keep up its deterrence as a superpower. That climate made the Iraq invasion look like a good idea at the time. As far as I understood it, 9/11 was never stated as an excuse to invade Iraq (as opposed to Afghanistan). At best as a reason to take the region more seriously. The government was convinced Saddam Hussein had connections to terrorism, but that wasn't really the reason to knock him out, they thought he had weapons of mass destruction. And yes, the Bush administration really was convinced of that, they just lied about the degree of evidence they had.
    - AtlasBarfed 4y ago
      Anyone with a modicum of awareness of politics at the time knew the Bush administration: 1) wanted to be in a war, since it historically makes the administration more significant 2) wanted to invade Iraq to "finish Dad's business" (and show him up) 3) oil 4) military industrial complex loves war Sadly, #3 is the most sane reason we got in that war. Oh yeah, and Halliburton made a mint on Iraq war support. The corruption was that blatant.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Cheney did, in fact, frequently express such a connection, even long after it was shown to be false.

toolz 4y ago

Rumsfeld had openly started planning for attacks on Iraq within 5-6 hours of the pentagon being struck by flight 77.

bayesian_horse 4y ago
As well he should. Iraq was one of the major suspects, especially that early. Having those plans, and preferably to never use them, is the very job of the defense department.
- toolz 4y ago
  What are you talking about? There never was, nor has there ever been evidence that Hussein orchestrated 9/11 attacks and Rumsfeld mentions targeting him specifically even in light of only having evidence that bin Laden was involved. Plane hits pentagon 9:37am by 2:40pm Rumsfeld is quoted in notes > "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    I didn't say there was. But when the culprits weren't clear, Iraq was a legitimate suspect for a time.
    - toolz 4y ago
      Let me get this straight. There was very little evidence and the evidence we did have didn't point to Iraq, but they were a legitimate suspect? You have to realize how this sounds, but I'll keep an open mind to interpreting what you're saying hospitably if you'd like to explain your reasoning.
      - bayesian_horse 4y ago
        Maybe "suspect" means more to you than it does to me.
        toolz 4y ago
        Maybe, that's why I'm hoping you'll explain what you mean.
    - q1w2 4y ago
      It was never unclear. The Administration knew the same day that it was Al-Quaeda. One of the stewardesses on the first plane to hit the tower called and told the control tower the seats the hijackers were in (2A & B), which led to their identification and connections to al-quaeda - same DAY.
      - bayesian_horse 4y ago
        I mean I may be wrong about this. Still I don't see evidence that it was clear on that day that Saddam Hussein was not responsible in any way. Saddam Hussein had motives to act against the US, did so in the past, and I really doubt that they had conclusive evidence Saddam Hussein didn't and would never work with Al-Qaeda. The very job of the DOD is to have such attack plans in the drawer. That's all I'm going to say on this.

bayesian_horse 4y ago

I don't remember a direct link being made between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. There always was mumbling about Saddam supporting terrorism, and Iraq being part of generally the same problem. Not exactly a wrong supposition, though the conclusion was quite disastrous.

thematrixturtle 4y ago
The GP's point is that 9/11 was turned into an excuse to invade Iraq, even though there was no actual connection.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  My feeling (I'm not an American) is that America got attacked and partly lost its mind and partly just had to lash out at somebody in retaliation to keep up its deterrence as a superpower. That climate made the Iraq invasion look like a good idea at the time. As far as I understood it, 9/11 was never stated as an excuse to invade Iraq (as opposed to Afghanistan). At best as a reason to take the region more seriously. The government was convinced Saddam Hussein had connections to terrorism, but that wasn't really the reason to knock him out, they thought he had weapons of mass destruction. And yes, the Bush administration really was convinced of that, they just lied about the degree of evidence they had.
  - AtlasBarfed 4y ago
    Anyone with a modicum of awareness of politics at the time knew the Bush administration: 1) wanted to be in a war, since it historically makes the administration more significant 2) wanted to invade Iraq to "finish Dad's business" (and show him up) 3) oil 4) military industrial complex loves war Sadly, #3 is the most sane reason we got in that war. Oh yeah, and Halliburton made a mint on Iraq war support. The corruption was that blatant.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Cheney did, in fact, frequently express such a connection, even long after it was shown to be false.