Iraq and 9/11

Shrinker said:
geggy, yet another stupid post. The question is not, 'why didn't they try to pin 9/11 on Iraq?'. Everybody knows they tried to pin 9/11 on Iraq but couldn't make it stick.The question is, why did they 'invent' Saudi haijackers and not Iraqi ones?
Click to expand...
Either way like it or not Geggy has a point. Though I haven't read the other threads. This one makes quite a bit of sense as a debunking point.

According to both Bob Woodward's and Richard Clarke's books as well as an admission by the Bush admin themselves, the plans to invade Iraq were made in Dec of 1999, before the chads had even settled on the floor. There was a caveat that the plans could not be implemented without some major event. I thought that was in the claim of the CT.

(Bush of course claimed the plans were just some standard contingency plan any good army would have ready if needed.)

But if Iraq was the goal and Saudi Arabia was an ally, these guys would have to be pulling one of those mission impossible schemes where you made it look like it wasn't too obviously Iraq to cover their tracks. That makes no sense. If it was a Bush plot and it was intended as a means of getting the US population to go along with an Iraq invasion, why would you make the hijackers Saudis and not Iraqis? Makes no sense.

I think I'll try this question out on my friends who have sucked in this particular CT nonsense.
 
I do think Geggy has a small point in this thread. Rumsfeld eagerness to invade Iraq would fit in a LIHOP scenario. Of course in a MIHOP scenario his point is moot because they wouldn't have chosen Saudi hijackers if the goal was to invade Iraq.

P.S. Everytime I use the acronyms LIHOP and MIHOP, I throw up a little.
 
Saudis as hijackers only makes sense if Al-Qaeda planned the attacks, since one of Osama's stated purposes was to get the US out of Saudi Arabia.

However, people in the government did try to tie 9/11 to Iraq. Cheney, in particular, repeated flogged a discredited story that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague. The Bush Administration coveted an invasion of Iraq from the first moments of its existence. Rumfeld jotted down his intent to find any possible ties to Iraq five hours after the Pentagon was hit. Clarke's stories of being ordered to look again and again into possible ties to Iraq have already been mentioned. Powell had to talk all of them down from invading Iraq first at the first major meeting to determine a response after September 11th.

Every time the Bush Administration tried desperately to divert the public attention from Afghanistan to Iraq, it puts another nail in the CT notion that they planned the 9/11 attack. They would have been better prepared to blame Hussein for the attacks if they had planned it. The nimble orchestrations we have to see at the heart of even the most simple BA-planned scenario are at complete odds with the stumble[rule8] way they tried to frame Iraq for the deed.
 
skeptigirl said:
According to both Bob Woodward's and Richard Clarke's books as well as an admission by the Bush admin themselves, the plans to invade Iraq were made in Dec of 1999, before the chads had even settled on the floor.
Click to expand...
And about 11 months before the votes were even cast. Are you sure about the date?
 
Personally I think Richard Clarke is lost to the political woo-woo. His Axe grinding seems to be more important than the truth...

Why else would he invent military exercises on 9/11, if not to suggest the US Government was involved?

The man is a CTer.

-Gumboot
 
geggy said:
I know many of you have asked that if our govt had planned and executed the 9/11 attack, why did they not link 9/11 to Iraq. They indeedy did so.
Click to expand...
Geggy.

I would like to bring to this thread my own opinion on this. I have mentioned this before in another thread but like many threads the opinion gets lost in derailing.

There are I'm sure many people here who agree with the war in Iraq and equally so I'm sure there are many people who disagree. The war in Iraq is one of the most important issues of modern times.

Without trying to provoke argument I have stated I am opposed to this war as are many millions of people around the globe. There was and always as been an opposition to this war. Even before it started literally millions took to the streets and marched against it, I was one of them. They gave voice to the opposition. This voice as not gone away, it as remained and has got stronger. It is not just a voice from within the US it is from across the entire planet.

The Government of the UK will stand or fall in the next election dependant on what is happening inside Iraq, as will the present US administration. This issue has literally pulled the US administration down to its lowest level in recent polls

the anti war movement has stood firm in it's oppression to this war.

The truth movement or those that seek to promote conspiracies about 911 have not. They choose to tap into genuine unease about the war .They try not only to condemn this war but to use it as a whipping tool to promote their theories. They try to use the whole sale slaughter inside Iraq as justification for condemnation of the present US administration and promotion of their theories.

I have literally seen on forums pictures of dead Iraqi children thrust in my face followed by the caption “Look this is what you support”. This is untrue; it does nothing to promote a fringe movement. I have seen pictures of the tortured of Iraqi prisoners, followed by the same caption, again this is not true.

The destruction of Iraq started long before 911; the economic sanctions following the first Gulf war literally crippled this country. I have seen articles that claim that over half a million children died in the decade of sanctions. I goes unnoticed by the truth movement.

It is offensive to try and merge the truth movement with the anti war movement. They are not the same. I have many friends who support the anti war lobby, they do not support the conspirators. They do not support the inside job theories. They base their beliefs on reality.

You would do well to stop trying to demonise those that do not support you by throwing the butchery of Iraq in their faces. For they have a voice, it is in the millions.

The truth movement as no such voice.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Metullus said:
And about 11 months before the votes were even cast. Are you sure about the date?
Click to expand...
I heard just today planning was actually begun in 1997, however, I meant to say Dec 2000. Life gets confusing sometimes.

I will have to look into the '97 claim.
 
skeptigirl said:
I heard just today planning was actually begun in 1997, however, I meant to say Dec 2000. Life gets confusing sometimes.

I will have to look into the '97 claim.
Click to expand...
well the US has contingency plans to invade almost every country in the world, its possible the plan they used was drawn up in 1997 based on iraqs military strength at the time
 
gumboot said:
Personally I think Richard Clarke is lost to the political woo-woo. His Axe grinding seems to be more important than the truth...

Why else would he invent military exercises on 9/11, if not to suggest the US Government was involved?

The man is a CTer.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...
Have you read the book, Gumboot? Looked into the guy's 30+ year career? Checked out how he got promoted to counter-terrorism chief?

I expect anyone writing a book such as his would put himself in the best light. That is a pretty natural tendency. But one can take that into consideration (plus other evidence) and still see the fact that Bush went on an anti-Clinton crusade right after taking office. Bush canceled the Kyoto treaty, stopped all involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian talks, changed course with North Korea for some examples. It seemed very much knee jerk policy planning right from the start.
 
gumboot said:
Personally I think Richard Clarke is lost to the political woo-woo. His Axe grinding seems to be more important than the truth...

Why else would he invent military exercises on 9/11, if not to suggest the US Government was involved?

The man is a CTer.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...
I don't understand this. AFAIK, Clarke's only invention of an exercise was when he wrote "Vigilant Warrior," which could easily be confused with "Vigilant Guardian." I'm not saying he doesn't have an axe to grind, but it seems unlikely that that would include inventing an exercise that could easily be shown to be nonexistent. Seems like a simple mistake to me. Am I missing something?
 
Gravy said:
I don't understand this. AFAIK, Clarke's only invention of an exercise was when he wrote "Vigilant Warrior," which could easily be confused with "Vigilant Guardian." I'm not saying he doesn't have an axe to grind, but it seems unlikely that that would include inventing an exercise that could easily be shown to be nonexistent. Seems like a simple mistake to me. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...



Wait... I thought his reference to 9/11 wargames was as part of a claim of confusion, false blips, and so forth.

I have just realised this is probably just CT nonsense, and he never claimed it.

Oops. :o

-Gumboot
 
defaultdotxbe said:
well the US has contingency plans to invade almost every country in the world, its possible the plan they used was drawn up in 1997 based on iraqs military strength at the time
Click to expand...
It is possible the planning was innocent standard contingency plans.

But the evidence suggests otherwise.

Why would those specific plans need revision?

Were plans revised for many other scenarios like North Korea selling nuclear weapons or China invading Taiwan or a war between India and Pakistan?

And of course the most incriminating evidence, they carried the frigging plans out, for Pete's sake! No WMD, no ties to 9/11, Bush screaming he wanted to know if Saddam was behind 9/11, faking the connection when no real one was found.....

If you want to maintain the benefit of the doubt I'd suggest you might be in denial along with a few other people in this country.
 
skeptigirl said:
And of course the most incriminating evidence, they carried the frigging plans out, for Pete's sake! No WMD, no ties to 9/11, Bush screaming he wanted to know if Saddam was behind 9/11, faking the connection when no real one was found.....

If you want to maintain the benefit of the doubt I'd suggest you might be in denial along with a few other people in this country.
Click to expand...



CTers always overplay the admin's attempts to link Iraq to 9/11. They were lucklustre at best. The major argument was always WMD. WMD has nothing to do with 9/11.

CTers are simply riding the anti-war wave, because it helps their silly ideas.

OMG LOLOLOL u beleive terrorists did 911 hello irak, need i say more????? LOLOLOL. They totally did 9/11 so they culd invade irak, so obvious !!!!!111!111ONE!!!!

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
CTers always overplay the admin's attempts to link Iraq to 9/11. They were lucklustre at best. The major argument was always WMD. WMD has nothing to do with 9/11.

CTers are simply riding the anti-war wave, because it helps their silly ideas.

OMG LOLOLOL u beleive terrorists did 911 hello irak, need i say more????? LOLOLOL. They totally did 9/11 so they culd invade irak, so obvious !!!!!111!111ONE!!!!

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Could you review this short video about the iraq-pin, Andrew?



- Oliver
 
gumboot said:
CTers always overplay the admin's attempts to link Iraq to 9/11. They were lucklustre at best. The major argument was always WMD. WMD has nothing to do with 9/11.

CTers are simply riding the anti-war wave, because it helps their silly ideas.

OMG LOLOLOL u beleive terrorists did 911 hello irak, need i say more????? LOLOLOL. They totally did 9/11 so they culd invade irak, so obvious !!!!!111!111ONE!!!!

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely.
 
Oliver said:
Could you review this short video about the iraq-pin, Andrew?

- Oliver
Click to expand...


I watched the first 30 seconds...

*Yawn*

A lot of Clarke's claims have been proven to be false (for example claiming person Y said X at meeting Z, even though X was not topic of the meeting, and Y wasn't even AT the meeting. A lot of it appears to be exaggeration. A large percentage of it is unsubstantiated.

Something really scares me about the US government. It's the number of workers who get political. It is not a government employee's job to get political. I think it's highly inappropriate.

Steele's emotive language at the beginning is sick. What sort of person uses mass suicide as a crutch to lean their political opinions on? I am so utterly fed up with seeing people doing this. Especially senior people in government. They should know better.

It seems the entire US Government - and I mean all the way from President down to the post office clerks - have some serious need for some basic ethics and values.

-Gumboot
 
Cylinder said:
I want to see the evidence that the US government tried to pin 9/11 on Iraq. I guess the phrase put up or shut up is a decent-enough fit here.
Click to expand...

"(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "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."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml
Click to expand...

5 hours.
 
notes.jpg


"These are Defense Department staffer Stephen Cambone's notes from a 2:40 PM meeting with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. Cambone's notes were cited heavily in the 9/11 Commission Report's reconstruction of the day's events. The document was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Thad Anderson....."

http://www.flickr.com/photos/66726692@N00/100545349/

http://www.outragedmoderates.org/2006/02/dod-staffers-notes-from-911-obtained.html
Click to expand...

Transcript (to the best of my ability):

"2:40
Resume Statement:

Best info fast
judge whether good enough
Hit S.H@ same time -
Not just UBL

Tasks Jim Haynes to talk w/ PW
for additional support v/v Usis &
connection w/ UBL

[REDACTED (N.R. stands for Not Relevant)]

- Hard to get a good case

- Need to move swiftly -

Near term target needs -
- go massive - sweep it all up
- Things related & not

[ARROW]
Need to do so
to get anything
useful"
 
They needed this link for their real plan which was to have forward bases in the Gulf planned long before 9/11. It was published by the PNAC in 2000 in Rebuilding America's Defenses. There they even admitted that the issue was beyond Saddam.

"Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." (page 14)

"Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region." (page 17)​

Click to expand...

They got the bases.


A major sticking point will be 14 "enduring" bases under construction for U.S. troops. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insists these facilities aren't permanent......

Click to expand...

​
 
Russell Pickering said:
To hear the plan to pin 9/11 on Iraq in fair detail, listen to this. At the very least start listening about 5 minutes in.

VERY EYE OPENING.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_8aOiMmekGk
Click to expand...


opinion from clark

glad we did not have him in the first gulf war

this guy is nuts, he wanted to start a war with Russia in during Bosnia War

NUTS

opinion from a Gulf war planner, and Bosnia NATO airlift coordinator, I worked for this fool

but I would have replacee Saddam during the first gulf war, and had the UN run Iraq

Saddam was a pain, seems like Iraq is like the USSR, the bad guy is gone then the other bad guys act up like Bosnia.

Thought he was going to tell us how to fix it! He did we need a political and diplomatic solution, but did not spell out the steps.

He did say put in more troops at the beginning, sound like Johnson, 1968 Vietnam, 16,000 troops died, the VietCong and NVA were 3 to 7 times better at killing us than Iraq. Clark, add more troops so we loose more troops, good idea Clarkbar.

Thanks for the video, glad you reminded me how much I like the leaders we had for the first gulf war execution.

Clark would have messed it up. Just like the General in Iraq now, peace time soldiers to the max. Where have all the good gererals gone????

I hat Saddam, so I am not qualified to comment on Iraq.

But I would not trust anything from Clark.
 
Russell Pickering said:
They needed this link for their real plan which was to have forward bases in the Gulf planned long before 9/11. It was published by the PNAC in 2000 in Rebuilding America's Defenses. There they even admitted that the issue was beyond Saddam.

They got the bases.
Click to expand...
The US had forward bases in the Gulf prior to 9/11, in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. That was a major source of bin Laden's anger towards the US. In 2003 the US bowed to political pressure and closed the bases in Saudi Arabia.
 
Russell Pickering said:
I don't think he would lie about his encounters at the Pentagon regarding the plan to invade Iraq.

You should listen 5 minutes in.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_8aOiMmekGk
Click to expand...


He did like about his encounters at other times regarding plans to invade Iraq. He claimed Rumsfield made crass remarks regarding invading Iraq on the back of 9/11 at a particular meeting.

Rumsfield was not in attendance at this meeting, and Iraq was not mentioned.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
I watched the first 30 seconds...

*Yawn*

A lot of Clarke's claims have been proven to be false (for example claiming person Y said X at meeting Z, even though X was not topic of the meeting, and Y wasn't even AT the meeting. A lot of it appears to be exaggeration. A large percentage of it is unsubstantiated.

Something really scares me about the US government. It's the number of workers who get political. It is not a government employee's job to get political. I think it's highly inappropriate.

Steele's emotive language at the beginning is sick. What sort of person uses mass suicide as a crutch to lean their political opinions on? I am so utterly fed up with seeing people doing this. Especially senior people in government. They should know better.

It seems the entire US Government - and I mean all the way from President down to the post office clerks - have some serious need for some basic ethics and values.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Uhm, okay. You revied the very first statement. :D
What about the rest of the clip? What about inspector Brix/propaganda?
 
Gravy said:
The US had forward bases in the Gulf prior to 9/11, in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. That was a major source of bin Laden's anger towards the US. In 2003 the US bowed to political pressure and closed the bases in Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...

That was acknowledged in the plan. That is why they need permenant bases more than ever.

"Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." (page 14)


"Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region." (page 17)​


Click to expand...
 
Russell Pickering said:
That was acknowledged in the plan. That is why they need permenant bases more than ever.
Click to expand...
Yes, the plan called for retaining forward bases, not closing them. There is no suggestion that the US should invade and occupy any country in order to establish new bases. As far as bin Laden was concerned, the US had already done exactly that.
 
OK.... let me see if I get debating the way you guys ask for correct.

Actually Saudi hijacker works excellent for a MIHOP scenario for 2 reasons.

1- Saudi hijackers could just "go through the system" of getting visa and passports. Their entry into the US would be much easier than Iraqis and would need no involvement by US officials thus less connection to this part of the plan.

2- Look how many people say it doesn't make sense that they used Saudis. The doubt the gov't would want.

I can post a link to a video where Cheney says Iraq was connected to 9/11 and Bush backs that up if I won't be blamed of link dumping.
 
Last edited:
gumboot said:
Wait... I thought his reference to 9/11 wargames was as part of a claim of confusion, false blips, and so forth.

I have just realised this is probably just CT nonsense, and he never claimed it.

Oops. :o

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if he claimed it but false blips are true. The 9/11 Commission Report talks about them.
 
Just thought I'd help you out Russell. Of course no one will post now cause "They're not talking to me" but there's 3 solid posts in relation to this thread. Anyone feel free to debate them with Russell. Bye.
 
WOW!!! You guys were right. I have to apologize. I should have just stuck to debating facts. Look how real facts just cleared the thread. All yours Russ.
 
This is just the way things were brought up by me but ignored at the start of the NYPD/NYFD but the whole time Gravy demand I should answer him. He got no answers casue he gave none. And then when I gave him my answers, he dodged answering my questions. But I wasn't suppose to get upset with that. My bad I guess.
 
Usual Suspect said:
This is just the way things were brought up by me but ignored at the start of the NYPD/NYFD but the whole time Gravy demand I should answer him. He got no answers casue he gave none. And then when I gave him my answers, he dodged answering my questions. But I wasn't suppose to get upset with that. My bad I guess.
Click to expand...

Amazing how your appearance cleared the thread. It is clear they fear your facts
 
jessicarabbit said:
Amazing how your appearance cleared the thread. It is clear they fear your facts
Click to expand...
Amazing how U.S. managed to clear the threads he's not even posting on as well.

You know some people have to sleep, and some people have to work.

Don't get too full of yourselves here.
 
uk_dave said:
Amazing how U.S. managed to clear the threads he's not even posting on as well.

You know some people have to sleep, and some people have to work.

Don't get too full of yourselves here.
Click to expand...

Good point taken. However Gravy posted in two other threads after I posted here. Have a Good night cause like you said, got to sleep.
 
Let's put this all in perspective about Iraq and 9/11.

The PNAC believes that America's government is good for America and the world.

The basic ways to achieve that are:

1) Economic dominance
2) Critical resource dominance
3) Information dominance
4) Celestial dominance
5) Military dominance

Obviously all of the above would be ideal. I put military dominance last because it is the method through which the critical resources will be dominated. Communication dominance and celestial dominance are seen as part of military dominance as well which will be evident soon.

This is how they feel about economic dominance.

Today, the United States
has an unprecedented strategic opportunity.
It faces no immediate great-power
challenge; it is blessed with wealthy,
powerful and democratic allies in every part
of the world; it is in the midst of the longest
economic expansion in its history; and its
political and economic principles are almost
universally embraced. At no time in history
has the international security order been as
conducive to American interests and ideals. (page iv)​
Click to expand...

So that's handled, what's next?

The challenge for the coming century is to
preserve and enhance this “American
peace.” ​


Yet unless the United States maintains
sufficient military strength, this opportunity
will be lost. (page iv)​
Click to expand...

What is their plan for military strength? Weapons development? Forward bases in the Gulf? The answer is really both, but which is of primary importance?​

A transformation strategy that solely
pursued capabilities for projecting force
from the United States, for example, and
sacrificed forward basing and presence,
would be at odds with larger American
policy goals and would trouble American
allies. (page 50)​
Click to expand...


Let's analyze this statement since it is the paragraph immediately prior to the infamous Pearl Harbor quote.​

Even if they have the new weapons they realize that projecting that force from the continental U.S. is insufficient. Then they say that not having forward bases would be at odds with "larger" American goals. This paragraph starts with the concept of transformation.​


The very next paragraph also starts with the concept of transformation which is logically linked to the above transformation strategy. We know that the weapons will be ineffective if projected solely from the continental U.S. so the forward bases are primary here.​

Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor. (page 51)​
Click to expand...

Here it is extremely obvious that they recognize the value of a "new Pearl Harbor" to expedite the process of transformation that requires "forward basing and presence".​

This is a good time to inject the fact that Rumsfeld and Cheney are primary members of the PNAC responsible for the above document. You will see their roles a little later.​


So, now lets see where they would like those bases to be and two reasons for them.​

"Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." (page 14)​
Click to expand...
"Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region." (page 17)
Click to expand...

Here we can see that it is the Gulf. We can also see that in both paragraphs Saddam is mentioned. But he is mentioned in the context of the issue of bases transcending his regime and "pass[ing] from the scene". VERY prophetic as is much of this document is.​

It also makes it very clear that these bases are "essential" to our security. But what are our "interests" in the region? Well it is number 2 on our original list - critical resource dominance.​


".....the preservation of a
favorable balance of power in Europe, the
Middle East and surrounding energy producing
region, and East Asia....." (page 17)​
Click to expand...


What must truly be done to ensure the security of global energy resources and U.S. security then? FORWARD BASES. Where? THE MIDDLE EAST.​


But that plan for "transformation" is likely to be a long one. Unless you have a new Pearl Harbor. That document was produced in September of 2000. So what is one way then to expedite the "transformation" and fulfill the prophecy of "Saddam pass[ing] from the scene"? You have a "new Pearl Harbor" and PIN IT ON SADDAM.​

So lets look at the evidence for this and remember who the PNAC members are in the process.​
"(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.
Click to expand...

With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "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."​

[/quote]

So one of the members, Donald Rumsfeld, within 5 hours of the Pentagon being struck initiated this process. It could reasonably then be assumed he was anxiously awaiting the opportunity. Notice too that they state, "even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks". That is because the issue at hand, which was really forward bases, "transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein". But he did "pass from the scene" in the process.​

Now in the sentence directly after the infamous Pearl Harbor quote what did they say were possible limitations to the transformation?​

"Domestic politics and

industrial policy will shape the pace and
content of transformation as much as the
requirements of current missions. (page 51)​


​
Click to expand...


I read that as saying domestic politics will shape the pace of the transformation. The realistic question is how?

Would domestic politics have supported the administration if they went on the news and said, "Hi - we have a plan for dominating the globe, getting rid of Saddam and gaining control of the Middle East by occupying it with forward and permanent military installations. It may cost the lives of 3000 soldiers but it is what we have to do. Oh - and it violates current international laws too"?​

So, how do we get around domestic politics?​

One example is a similar plan to prevent WMD and oust a dictator named Castro, it was called Operation Northwoods. It also involved airplanes, hijacking and Pearl Harbor like scenarios. The purpose of the false terror attacks on American interests was to get around the domestic politics of the day by having "Casualty lists in US newspapers [that] would cause a helpful wave of national indignation". It was just a plan then yes - but the principle is recognized as effective by military strategists in all times.​

It was recognized in 1962 in these words, "It is recognized that any action which becomes pretext for US military intervention in Cuba will lead to a political decision which then would lead to military action".​

It was recognized by these words in 2000, "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."​

It is very true that president Bush never directly linked Saddam and 9/11 in a public forum.​

"In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11. ​

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent [eventually 70% in some polls] of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
Click to expand...

President Bush is not a listed member of the PNAC even though his brother Jeb is. Jeb was just elected the governor in the key electoral state that ensured the placement of his brother as president via his dad's supreme court which ruled that 543,895 individual American popular votes didn't count that day. ​

So what about Cheney, another PNAC member? Did he link 9/11 and Saddam?​

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]The Vice President appears on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, [/FONT][/FONT]September 16, 2001

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html
Click to expand...

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]This proves clearly that 5 days after 9/11 he KNEW there was no evidence and eventually the facts would prove that out. But by September 2002 he was recognized in the media as being at the forefront of efforts to oust Saddam.[/FONT]

Cheney has been at the forefront of the Bush administration efforts to rally Congress and the international community against Saddam's regime. That effort will be amplified when President Bush goes before the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday and outlines his case against the Iraqi leader.

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/09/cheney.interview/index.html[/FONT]
Click to expand...

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]So how did handle the Iraq 9/11 connection? He took the path of implying it even as late as September 2003.

[/FONT]
"Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks."
Click to expand...
But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/
Click to expand...

Anxious is how I described Rumsfeld's immediate attempt to pin it on Saddam. So in reality it was the two primary PNAC members behind Saddam "pass[ing] from the scene" as if they were waiting for the opportunity.

Who was actually in charge on 9/11?

As horrified Americans watched the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, unfold on their television sets, Vice President Dick Cheney directed the U.S. government's response from an emergency bunker.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/11/ar911.king.cheney/index.html
Click to expand...

So a PNAC member was in charge on 9/11. Was there anything suspicious about it?

Regarding United 93, Hamilton (Lee- vice chair of the 9/11 Commission) says that there is a gap in the accounts of the president's and vice president's actions that day; several minutes at the time that shooting down hijacked planes was discussed have not been accounted for.

http://www.freetimes.com/story/681
Click to expand...

How did Cheney and Bush handle this?

Bush and Cheney did not testify before the panel -- they were not under oath and there was to be no recording made of the session nor a stenographer in the room.

The two members of the White House counsel's staff were expected to take notes during the session, and the commission members were also allowed to take handwritten notes.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/29/bush.911.commission/
Click to expand...

Getting back to the forward bases again. How did the administration handle this? First they tried to kill the law against it.
Congressional Republicans killed a provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have put the United States on record against the permanent basing of U.S. military facilities in that country, a lawmaker and congressional aides said on June 9.​

Click to expand...

But by the time congress stopped that it was too late. Permanent had already been redefined as "enduring".​

A major sticking point will be 14 "enduring" bases under construction for U.S. troops. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insists these facilities aren't permanent......​

Click to expand...

Economic dominance secure? Check. Critical resource dominance secure? Check. Forward bases secure? Check.​

All we have left to prove the PNAC plan is real and prophetic is celestial dominance and information dominance. The following is a quote from rebuilding America's Defenses again.​
"'It is not an optional extra.' For U.S. armed forces to continue to assert military preeminence, control of space – defined by Space Command as 'the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium, and an ability to deny others the use of space' – must be an essential element of our military strategy. If America cannot maintain that control, its ability to conduct global military operations will be severely complicated, far more costly, and potentially fatally compromised". (page 55)
​
Click to expand...



Wed Oct 18, 2006​
Click to expand...
​

President Bush has signed a newly revised space policy that sets defense as a priority and rejects future negotiations that might limit U.S. flexibility in space, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday.​

The document, released earlier this month with no public announcement, emphasizes security issues, the newspaper reported.​


Bush's top goals, as stated in the document, are to "strengthen the nation's space leadership and ensure that space capabilities are available in time to further U.S. national security, homeland security, and foreign policy objectives" and to "enable unhindered U.S. operation in and through space to defend our interest there," the newspaper reported.



​
Click to expand...


Another quote from Rebuilding America's Defenses.​
​
​


"Cyberspace, or ‘Net-War’- If outer space represents an emerging medium of warfare, then “cyberspace,” and in particular the Internet hold similar promise and threat. And as with space, access to and use of cyberspace and the Internet are emerging elements in global commerce, politics and power. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new 'global commons'". (page 57)​
Click to expand...


The Pentagon’s strategy for taking over the Internet and controlling the free flow of information has already been chronicled in a recently declassified report, “The Information Operations Roadmap”; is a window into the minds of those who see free speech as dangerous as an “enemy weapons-system”. ​

The Pentagon is aiming for “full spectrum dominance” of the Internet. Their objective is to manipulate public perceptions, quash competing points of view, and perpetuate a narrative of American generosity and good-will.​


Click to expand...


Did anybody notice who the document was attributed to? PNAC member Donald Rumsfeld.

Celestial dominance? Check. Information dominance? Check.​

Global dominance at any cost? Coming soon!​

If a surgeon is willing to kill a few cells to save a patient and the PNAC believes it is "saving" the world - then what are a few people in the process?​

I believe in their minds that 10,000 people to "save" several billion is a cost they are willing to pay. They truly believe in their mission. They have different values than the rest of us. They believe they are doing good.​

If we're sitting in an office or on a plane we see it differently and can't even imagine what they are thinking.​

They knew they lied about Iraq and they knew soldiers would die. The did it anyway. They have killed, with premeditation, over 3000 soldiers so far and more every day.​

So why do you deny they would do it to 3000 civilians?​
 
Last edited:
Russell Pickering said:
Let's put this all in perspective about Iraq and 9/11.
Click to expand...

I hate to condense your considerable post into a few meager sentences, but I'm on the precipice of passing out. But this is why we are in Iraq:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/un/index.html

1194 (9 September 1998): Iraq-Kuwait.
"Condemns the decision by Iraq ... to suspend cooperation with [Unscom] and the IAEA", demands that the decisions be reversed and cancels October 1998 scheduled sanctions review.
Click to expand...

1115 (21 June 1997): Iraq-Kuwait.
"Condemns the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites" and "[d]emands that [they] cooperate fully" with Unscom. Suspends the sanctions and arms embargo reviews (paragraphs 21 and 28 of SCR 687) until the next Unscom report and threatens to "impose additional measures on those categories of Iraqi officials responsible for the non-compliance".
Click to expand...


Yes, there were no WMD's. But before March of 2003, who knew?


They knew they lied about Iraq and they knew soldiers would die. The did it anyway. They have killed, with premeditation, over 3000 soldiers so far and more every day.
Click to expand...


Also, be careful. Accusing someone of a crime without sufficient evidence is a crime itself. Claiming someone killed 3000 persons with premeditation is a pretty bold charge. I know you use the evasive "they", but judges don't typically indict "they." Are you prepared to take your evidence into a court of law and indict specific people?


**emphasis added


ETA: I'm on the verge of global collapse; so I will give your post its due attention later today.
 
Last edited:
Usual Suspect said:
I'm not sure if he claimed it but false blips are true. The 9/11 Commission Report talks about them.
Click to expand...



They were not. The NORAD exercise had not even started when the first hijacking call was reported. In addition, it was ATC who failed to identify the hijacked aircraft on their scopes, and ATC were not involved in the NORAD exercise.

There were numerous false reports of hijackings (NEADS received 11 hijacking reports in the first 90 minutes), however these were not due to "false blips".

-Gumboot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom