5 ms·
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 specifi
by 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 agoI didn't say there was. But when the culprits weren't clear, Iraq was a legitimate suspect for a time.
- toolz 4y agoLet 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 agoMaybe "suspect" means more to you than it does to me.
- toolz 4y agoMaybe, that's why I'm hoping you'll explain what you mean.
- q1w2 4y agoIt 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 agoI 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.