Iraq and 9/11

[geggy]

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.

Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml)(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.

That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 – notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.

Although it was proven false that plans to strike Iraq did not begin on 9/11. It was actually way, way beforehand. Despite the push of 9/11-iraq link by the white house that still continues to this day, the FBI and the senate, who weren't "in on it", have found no evidence of Iraq and 9/11 link.

Former CIA Director Looks for Evidence that Iraq Had Role in Attacks (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/11829342.htm)
By Warren P. Strobel
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON--Senior Pentagon officials who want to expand the war against terrorism to Iraq authorized a trip to Great Britain last month by former CIA director James Woolsey in search of evidence that Saddam Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, U.S. officials told Knight Ridder.

The unusual, semi-official trip was at least the second such mission undertaken this year by Woolsey, a leading proponent of the theory that Iraq masterminded both the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and last month's suicide hijackings, said the officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity.

Atta met twice with Iraqi intelligence (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/11/inv.atta.meetings/)
October 11, 2001 Posted: 10:04 PM EDT (0204 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. officials revealed Thursday that Mohammed Atta -- one of the suspected suicide hijackers -- had two meetings, not one, with Iraqi intelligence officers in Prague, Czech Republic.

The first meeting was in June 2000 and the second one was in April 2001, sources said. In both cases Atta met in Prague with Iraqi intelligence officers operating under cover as diplomats.

Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&ssheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html)
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 14/12/2003)

Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist

Details of Atta's visit to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just weeks before he launched the most devastating terrorist attack in US history, are contained in a top secret memo written to Saddam Hussein, the then Iraqi president, by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.

Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075)

[Bell]

NO geggy, finish the other thread(s) first. You still haven't answered my question.

[Oliver]

This is nothing new to me at all.

@admins: We are talking about a conspiracy theory made by the US. Not about US politics.

[Shrinker]

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?

[uk_dave]

This reminds me of....


From Rolling Stone.....


.....Just imagine how this planning session between Bush, Rummy and Cheney must have gone:

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of ****ing nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of ****ing nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, OK.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? ****, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!




More.....
http://tinyurl.com/oagtw

[Gravy]

I know many of you have asked...Name one.

279, geggy.

[Bell]

Name one.

There you've done it, Gravy. He'll run off now, and start a new thread tomorrow. Thanks a bunch!

[jhunter1163]

Is it just me, or does no one else find this particularly sinister? Of course they developed a contingency plan. That's what military planners DO. I bet there isn't a country in the world that we don't have a contingency plan to invade, just because you never know where the next lunatic is going to come to power. But will we actually invade? Almost certainly not.

But do we have a contingency plan to invade, say, Venezuela? I've got fifty bucks that says we do. Just in case....

[geggy]

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?

I didn't realize the hijackers had to be iraqis if the neocons wanted to invade iraq. In that case, if all hijackers were saudi nationals, then why are we in afghanistan and iraq but not saudi arabia if they're so concerned about terrorism? It's no secret that saudi arabia is the epicenter of terrorism fundings.

[Shrinker]

Our argument is that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, not that Bush & co are tactical geniuses. If you have a problem with US foreign policy step into the politics forum. I'm sure you'll be most welcome.

Now, the connection between 9/11 and Iraq was IMO embarrassingly badly made by Bush. Why did the evil conspirators make it so difficult for themselves? Why did they not plant convincing evidence of a link?

[bob_kark]

Is it just me, or does no one else find this particularly sinister? Of course they developed a contingency plan. That's what military planners DO. I bet there isn't a country in the world that we don't have a contingency plan to invade, just because you never know where the next lunatic is going to come to power. But will we actually invade? Almost certainly not.

But do we have a contingency plan to invade, say, Venezuela? I've got fifty bucks that says we do. Just in case....
Actually, I do find it a bit sinister. Richard Clarke reports in his book that Bush had forced him to check again for any connection to Iraq immediately following the attacks. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill claims Bush was trying to find a way to invade Iraq from the inception of his presidency. So, it was certainly more than a contengency plan.

However, I think this goes further to show that he had no involvement in the attacks. Again, had he wanted to place blame on Iraq, he had ample time to leave Hussain's fingerprints on the whole mess. Instead, it appears he's simply an opportunistic S.O.B. who used the deaths of thousands of individuals to further his own political agenda.

[Cylinder]

Everybody knows they tried to pin 9/11 on Iraq but couldn't make it stick.

Can you provide evidence for this?

[Shrinker]

Can you provide evidence for this?

No.

[gumboot]

Is it just me, or does no one else find this particularly sinister? Of course they developed a contingency plan. That's what military planners DO. I bet there isn't a country in the world that we don't have a contingency plan to invade, just because you never know where the next lunatic is going to come to power.


I hear tell that immediately prior to WW2 the US had a contingency plan to invade the UK.

-Gumboot

[bob_kark]

I hear tell that immediately prior to WW2 the US had a contingency plan to invade the UK.

-Gumboot
And we would've gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for those pesky Japanese!

[gumboot]

Actually, I do find it a bit sinister. Richard Clarke reports in his book that Bush had forced him to check again for any connection to Iraq immediately following the attacks.


Richard Clarke also mentions, in his book, a supposed NORAD exercise that doesn't even exist.

-Gumboot

[bob_kark]

Richard Clarke also mentions, in his book, a supposed NORAD exercise that doesn't even exist.

-Gumboot
Well, he didn't work for NORAD, however he was directly asked by Bush to check yet again for any links between Iraq and the attacks.

[Bell]

I didn't realize the hijackers had to be iraqis if the neocons wanted to invade iraq. In that case, if all hijackers were saudi nationals, then why are we in afghanistan and iraq but not saudi arabia if they're so concerned about terrorism? It's no secret that saudi arabia is the epicenter of terrorism fundings.

How's 'bout that Al Qaida was given shelter in Afghanistan, not Saudi Arabia? And the Taliban refusing to turn over OBL? Also, you might want to keep Iraq out of your question. Just a simple answer, geggy.



Now, can you give a simple answer to my question?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2025856&postcount=44

This is the SEVENTH time I ask you to answer this simple question.

Or are you just so dumb to link to an incredible piece of evidence, evidence you couldn't even read yourself, and then make a claim that piece of evidence said something it actually didn't?

I'll give you three options:

1.) Answer my question: "I read that memo twice just now. Where does it talk about hijacking planes AND using those planes as missiles?"
2.) Admit you're dumb because you linked to the evidence without knowing what it actually said.
3.) You did read the evidence but thought you could get away with it, and when confronted, you lied about watching it on a cell phone.

(no Planet X option this time)

[Pardalis]

I didn't realize the hijackers had to be iraqis if the neocons wanted to invade iraq. In that case, if all hijackers were saudi nationals, then why are we in afghanistan and iraq but not saudi arabia if they're so concerned about terrorism? It's no secret that saudi arabia is the epicenter of terrorism fundings.

And how does that relate to 9/11 being an "inside job"?

:confused:

How does that work?

-The US did not invade Saudi Arabia. Most 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals, therefore 9/11 was perpetrated by the US to justify invading Iraq.

-The US invaded Iraq. Most 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Therefore, the US perpetrated 9/11 to not invade Saudi Arabia.

:confused:

[Garb]

And how does that relate to 9/11 being an "inside job"?

:confused:

How does that work?

-The US did not invade Saudi Arabia. Most 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals, therefore 9/11 was perpetrated by the US to justify invading Iraq.

-The US invaded Iraq. Most 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Therefore, the US perpetrated 9/11 to not invade Saudi Arabia.

:confused:

Makes sense to me!![/CT]

[Mince]

I didn't realize the hijackers had to be iraqis if the neocons wanted to invade iraq. In that case, if all hijackers were saudi nationals, then why are we in afghanistan and iraq but not saudi arabia if they're so concerned about terrorism? It's no secret that saudi arabia is the epicenter of terrorism fundings.


The hijackers were of Saudi origin, but belonged to Al Queda. Saudi did not attack us, Al Queda did. Should we hold your parents liable for a murder you commit because the murder would never have occured had you never been born?

The reasons we are in Iraq are many and historied. I'm not going to recount it here. Do a little reading.

[gumboot]

The hijackers were of Saudi origin, but belonged to Al Queda. Saudi did not attack us, Al Queda did.


At least one of the hijackers was Lebanese. I think you guys should invade Lebanon too. Just to be on the safe side.

-Gumboot

[Bell]

At least one of the hijackers was Lebanese. I think you guys should invade Lebanon too. Just to be on the safe side.

-Gumboot

Atta lived in Germany for some time. Bomb the heck out of it... again.

Sorry, Oliver. You can stay at my place, if the need rises.

[gumboot]

Atta lived in Germany for some time. Bomb the heck out of it... again.

Sorry, Oliver. You can stay at my place, if the need rises.


One of the hijackers roomates recently turned up here in New Zealand and started taking flying lessons.

You guys should definately invade us.

-Gumboot

[Pardalis]

One of the hijackers roomates recently turned up here in New Zealand and started taking flying lessons.

You guys should definately invade us.

-Gumboot

One can never be too sure.

[Bell]

One of the hijackers roomates recently turned up here in New Zealand and started taking flying lessons.

You guys should definately invade us.

-Gumboot

That be easy. You only have swords and bows to fight (I saw so in a movie). The US has sooper sekrit weapons and hushaboom bombs.

I provide a map, so the US military recognizes New Zealand.

http://www.wheretoenjoy.com/wheretoenjoy2002_2003/images/australia-map-with-states-O.gif

[Pardalis]

But wouldn't that create a political vaccum between the Maori and the white population? Oh, well, let's just do it and see what happens...

:rolleyes:

[gumboot]

That be easy. You only have swords and bows to fight (I saw so in a movie). The US has sooper sekrit weapons and hushaboom bombs.

I provide a map, so the US military recognizes New Zealand.

http://www.wheretoenjoy.com/wheretoenjoy2002_2003/images/australia-map-with-states-O.gif


:dl:

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

But wouldn't that create a political vaccum between the Maori and the white population?


My house could do with a vacuum.

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

Everybody knows they tried to pin 9/11 on Iraq but couldn't make it stick.

Can you provide evidence for this?

Yes, off course. The faked evidence. ;)

[Cylinder]

Yes, off course. The faked evidence. ;)

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.

[gumboot]

Returning to the OP...

Geggy has it all backwards. He states:

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.

That, of course, is not the argument. The argument is, if the government planned and executed the 9/11 attacks to justify invading Iraq why did they not make obvious and indisputable links between Iraq and the attacks - such as making the hijackers Iraqis (or better yet, Iraqi government agents).

The fact that they made such weak links between 9/11 and Iraq indicates they were attempting to twist the event to try and use it to help a totally unrelated agenda of going into Iraq.

This demolishes the "US did 9/11 so they could invade Iraq" theory.

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

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.

oxWuApjie24

I guess the phrase "What a bunch of as**oles" is a decent-enough fit here. ;)

[DarkMagician]

Is it just me, or does no one else find this particularly sinister? Of course they developed a contingency plan. That's what military planners DO. I bet there isn't a country in the world that we don't have a contingency plan to invade, just because you never know where the next lunatic is going to come to power. But will we actually invade? Almost certainly not.

But do we have a contingency plan to invade, say, Venezuela? I've got fifty bucks that says we do. Just in case....
Try Canada: War Plan Red (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122901412_pf.html)

[MikeW]

That, of course, is not the argument. The argument is, if the government planned and executed the 9/11 attacks to justify invading Iraq why did they not make obvious and indisputable links between Iraq and the attacks - such as making the hijackers Iraqis (or better yet, Iraqi government agents).
Actually they wouldn't even needed to do that... What if, say, they'd faked some money transfers to Atta from an Iraqi source? That could be as simple as a hack of some computer records, although they could improve it with a fake photo or two of Atta picking up the cash, but either way you'd only need a few people. It would have been incredibly easy, compared to the other nonsense we're supposed to believe they did, & yet strangely they didn't bother.

What we got instead were after the fact attempts to stretch the evidence, find reasons to implicate Iraq. And that quite clearly says that while the US Government took advantage of 9/11, they didn't engineer it, otherwise they'd have created a story that was much more convenient & suited their needs.

[gumboot]

Actually they wouldn't even needed to do that... What if, say, they'd faked some money transfers to Atta from an Iraqi source? That could be as simple as a hack of some computer records, although they could improve it with a fake photo or two of Atta picking up the cash, but either way you'd only need a few people. It would have been incredibly easy, compared to the other nonsense we're supposed to believe they did, & yet strangely they didn't bother.

What we got instead were after the fact attempts to stretch the evidence, find reasons to implicate Iraq. And that quite clearly says that while the US Government took advantage of 9/11, they didn't engineer it, otherwise they'd have created a story that was much more convenient & suited their needs.


Precisely. You have summed it up much better than me. :)

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

Cylinder? I took the first evidence i could find at Google.

[jhunter1163]

I can see the WWII UK plan. If Hitler invaded England, we were sure as hell going to kick him out. But Canada? Our neighbors to the north? Home of Anne Murray, Celine Dion, curling, and Michael J. Fox? OK, maybe those are good reasons to invade, but you guys have Randi, too. And Molson. Leave them alone, I say.

[geggy]

I'm not sure what some of you are trying to say here. The US has attempted to link 9/11 to Iraq while combining it with WMDs possession during the propaganda campaign precedng the invasion of Iraq. It was proven to be successful, afterall they did get into Iraq. CIA agent Woosley have attempted to make Atta's meeting with an iraqi intelligence agent in czech as 9/11 related but no one has found any evidence of that. It appeared that the claim, along with claims that there were no WMDs, were ignored by US officials and it is even still pushed to this day.

If the US used iraqis as hijackers for the 9/11 attack, would it appear more obvious to you that it was an inside job?

I don't recall hearing of any radical extremists involving in al qaeda being an iraqi national. Either they're part of the sunni militia or the shiites, if not the kurds. Al qaeda is a much broader network that's widespread all over the middle east, which gave the US justification to implement the so called war on terror campaign that isn't designed to do anything and invade the middle east.

Plans to invade Afghanistan were on the table before 9/11, as well. Some of the agendas were to build oil pipeline (which never happened) and to protect farmers and recultivate the opium crop (which grew from nothing to 90 percent) to channel profits through warlords, us officials in the white house and their ally in the afghanistan government. Invasion of afghanistan, I believe, was also considered as softer option and a beginning of security transformation in the middle east.

[gumboot]

Plans to invade Afghanistan were on the table before 9/11, as well. Some of the agendas were to build oil pipeline (which never happened)


It was a GAS pipeline. And the interest was luke warm at best. It dried up quickly when the situation changed.

Try do some reading (http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/14/silverstein-k.html).

The Caspian region is home to huge energy resources -- by some estimates, it may produce 5 percent of the world's oil within a decade -- but Afghanistan is almost entirely irrelevant to their exploitation. In fact, the country is today less likely to be a player in the Caspian sweepstakes than it was before the fall of the Taliban. "The idea of Afghanistan re-emerging as a transit corridor for Caspian oil and gas is not remotely realistic in today's circumstances -- even in a best-case scenario in which Afghanistan were to emerge from the present conflict with a vigorous, broadly based and stable government with strong international support," says Laurent Ruseckas, a Caspian expert at Cambridge Energy Research Associates.

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&ssheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html


This is a lie!

The famous three german hijacker like Mohammed Atta were trained in Al Farouq in Afghanistan.
There is no evidence that any of the hijacker were trained by iraqis.

[skeptigirl]

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?
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.

[Peephole]

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.

[boloboffin]

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.

[Metullus]

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. And about 11 months before the votes were even cast. Are you sure about the date?

[gumboot]

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

[stateofgrace]

[quote]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.[quote]

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.

[skeptigirl]

And about 11 months before the votes were even cast. Are you sure about the date?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.

[defaultdotxbe]

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.
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

[skeptigirl]

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
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.

[Gravy]

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.

-GumbootI 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?

[gumboot]

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?



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

[skeptigirl]

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 timeIt 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.

[gumboot]

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.



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

[Oliver]

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

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

oxWuApjie24

- Oliver

[stateofgrace]

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

I agree with you completely.

[gumboot]

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

- Oliver


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

[Russell Pickering]

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.



"(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



5 hours.

[Russell Pickering]

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/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


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"

[Russell Pickering]

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)

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf


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......

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/31660.html

[Russell Pickering]

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

[beachnut]

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


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]

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

[Gravy]

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.

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.

[gumboot]

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


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

[Oliver]

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

Uhm, okay. You revied the very first statement. :D
What about the rest of the clip? What about inspector Brix/propaganda?

[Russell Pickering]

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.

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)


http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)

[Gravy]

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

[Usual Suspect]

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.

[Usual Suspect]

Cheney connects Iraq (http://www.youtube.com/v/IJiNtpIpD6k)

[Usual Suspect]

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

I'm not sure if he claimed it but false blips are true. The 9/11 Commission Report talks about them.

[Usual Suspect]

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.

[Usual Suspect]

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.

[Usual Suspect]

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.

[jessicarabbit]

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.

Amazing how your appearance cleared the thread. It is clear they fear your facts

[uk_dave]

Amazing how your appearance cleared the thread. It is clear they fear your facts
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.

[Usual Suspect]

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.

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.

[Russell Pickering]

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)


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)


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)


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)


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)

"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)


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)


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.


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/...in520830.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml)
[/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)







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


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?


The Vice President appears on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, 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


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.


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.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/09/cheney.interview/index.html (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/09/cheney.interview/index.html)


So how did handle the Iraq 9/11 connection? He took the path of implying it even as late as September 2003.


"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."

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/
(http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/)

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


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


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/


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.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...1358&C=mideast


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......

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/31660.html


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)



Wed Oct 18, 2006

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.


http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-10-18T060044Z_01_N18306651_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-SPACE.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C3-domesticNews-3






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)



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.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12060.htm


ACTUAL DOCUMENT:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB177/index.htm







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?

[Mince]

Let's put this all in perspective about Iraq and 9/11.

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.

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".


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.


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.

[gumboot]

I'm not sure if he claimed it but false blips are true. The 9/11 Commission Report talks about them.



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

[stateofgrace]

Let's put this all in perspective about Iraq and 9/11.



Yes let’s do that

Iraq had nothing to do with 911.

Iraq was not invaded because of 911.

No Iraqis were involved in the attacks of 911

Iraq did not support Al Quada.

The decision to invade Iraq was taken because it was believed they were developing WMD.

This was later found to be incorrect.

3000 coalition service people have lost their lives since the start of the war inside Iraq

Countless thousand of innocent Iraqis have lost their lives.

The war has cost the US countless billions of dollars.

This war is the most unpopular war ever.

This war is the one foreign issue that will remove Bush from office.

This removal will have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the claims made by the truth movement.

That being the Iraq war is part of a massive conspiracy brought about by the attacks of 911.

This is because the Iraq war and the attacks of 911 although both dreadful are separate issues.

I trust this clears up Iraq and 911.

[Skibum]

Agreed with pretty much everything except...

This war is the one foreign issue that will remove Bush from office.
I think term limits wil remove him from office.

[realitybites]

Agreed with pretty much everything except...


I think term limits wil remove him from office.
Apparently you haven't heard Skibum. Back in '97 (or '00... or '86... I can't remember which) when the NWO was making it's plan to invade Iraq for the second time (the 1st invasion was intentionally left incomplete for just this reason), they were also working on a plan to convince the American public to get rid of that pesky "term-limit" thing. The final touches were put in place about 2 months ago (or 4 months ago... or last year... I can't remember which).

According to my soucre, the plan involves spinach and a massive recall on Tickle Me Elmo dolls. We already saw the spinach thing here. Look for the recall to hit conspicuously right after the holiday season. The plan is to purposefully give the Dems power in next weeks election and then blame the newly elected Democratic congress for the dolls defect (it explodes after three tickles). They will then ride this wave of Democratic incompetence to revise the constitution. It will be amended with plenty of time for Bush to start campaigning for his future as Lifetime Ruler Of the United Empire of America And Beyond (Including Botswana).

... It's true.

[milesalpha]

Iraq was not invaded because of 911.

This war is the one foreign issue that will remove Bush from office.




Just have to quibble a bit with these two. I would argue that 9/11 gave Bush the political capital to be able to engage in war. He frequently mentioned Hussein as a supporter of terrorists and presented many supposed links between Al-Quaeda and Iraq (along the lines of "Bin Laden's cousin's friend's proctologist once watched an Iraq soccer game). It worked for a while, much like the British public before WWI, America had been whipped ito a frenzy by the event. Combine this with an aggressive, UN-unfriendly, alliance unfriendly, "USA is God's chosen", "we will bomb these little brown people into democracy" type crowd (notice I didn't say neo-con, that shows willpower)and you get either a stunning series of victories (Hitler, post-Reichstag fire, gains total control of his nation and turns it into a superpower) or disasters (Bush, bumbles through everything, Aghanistan a growing mess, Iraq a growing mess, your economy an impending mess). No conspiracy needed, just the usual political opportunism.


I sure wish you would remove Bush. Not gonna happen. The best that we can look forward to is a lame duck president is your midterm elections make sense.

[stateofgrace]

Iraq was not invaded because of 911.

This war is the one foreign issue that will remove Bush from office.

Just have to quibble a bit with these two. I would argue that 9/11 gave Bush the political capital to be able to engage in war. He frequently mentioned Hussein as a supporter of terrorists and presented many supposed links between Al-Quaeda and Iraq (along the lines of "Bin Laden's cousin's friend's proctologist once watched an Iraq soccer game). It worked for a while, much like the British public before WWI, America had been whipped ito a frenzy by the event. Combine this with an aggressive, UN-unfriendly, alliance unfriendly, "USA is God's chosen", "we will bomb these little brown people into democracy" type crowd (notice I didn't say neo-con, that shows willpower)and you get either a stunning series of victories (Hitler, post-Reichstag fire, gains total control of his nation and turns it into a superpower) or disasters (Bush, bumbles through everything, Aghanistan a growing mess, Iraq a growing mess, your economy an impending mess). No conspiracy needed, just the usual political opportunism.


I sure wish you would remove Bush. Not gonna happen. The best that we can look forward to is a lame duck president is your midterm elections make sense.

I agree totally with what you have said and have bolded what I should have said. Although not directly involved in the attacks of 911, it was used to muscle up support for the invasion.

My bad, apologies.

ETA I would like to add,that although I disagree with war, I disagree from a political view only. I am not anti military nor do I wish to be seen as having a go at any service personnel who may be involved in this war. I fully support our troops and hope this situation can be resolved and they all return home safely

[Pardalis]

Shouldn't this thread be moved to the politics forum?

[Oliver]

Shouldn't this thread be moved to the politics forum?

I don´t think so. It´s part of the CT´ists claims. So it´s more
an CT issue then a political. Even if it´s unpopular.

Eta: Debunking everything or nothing.

[Usual Suspect]

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


No?? So you're saying you never even read the story you support?? I'd have to drag the book out and find the exact page number for you. However in the 9/11 Commission Report they do mention false radar blips and them being purged from all radar screens. That I stand by cause I read the report. And here I thought you'd at least know the story you support. So who's lying?? The Commission or NORAD??

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

... I'd have to drag the book out and find the exact page number for you. However in the 9/11 Commission Report they do mention false radar blips and them being purged from all radar screens. ...

To facilitate: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html

[Usual Suspect]

Cheney connects Iraq (http://www.youtube.com/v/IJiNtpIpD6k)

We all know Iraq wasn't connected to 9/11 but the above video shows Cheney and Bush supporting the idea.

[Usual Suspect]

To facilitate: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html


There you go. I actually have the book itself. I guess it was silly of me to think those who believe and support the story would have at least read it and know what the story is. Anyway, that pretty much shows how good the debate is here. Rail Russ and Jess for their "facts" while not knowing any of our own. Bye.

[Oliver]

Fixed the link...

IJiNtpIpD6k

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

There you go. I actually have the book itself. I guess it was silly of me to think those who believe and support the story would have at least read it and know what the story is. Anyway, that pretty much shows how good the debate is here. Rail Russ and Jess for their "facts" while not knowing any of our own. Bye.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? How does my providing of the online version of the report, so you can cite the specific page in your discussion with gumboot, translate into what you stated above?

[Mince]

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? How does my providing of the online version of the report, so you can cite the specific page in your discussion with gumboot, translate into what you stated above?


When US said "Anyway, that pretty much shows how good the debate is here." he was seemingly talking about himself.

[Gravy]

Too bad. I was eager to see Usual Suspect's crack research in action. Well, at least we know he owns a book.

[WildCat]

Too bad. I was eager to see Usual Suspect's crack research in action. Well, at least we know he owns a book.
Yeah, he was gonna school us all!

[gumboot]

No?? So you're saying you never even read the story you support?? I'd have to drag the book out and find the exact page number for you. However in the 9/11 Commission Report they do mention false radar blips and them being purged from all radar screens. That I stand by cause I read the report. And here I thought you'd at least know the story you support. So who's lying?? The Commission or NORAD??



I do not support a "Story". I am only interesting in knowing the truth. I'll leave the stories to you. NORAD's exercise was scheduled to commence at 0900hrs EDT. The first hijacking notification occured at 0837 EDT, and the exercise was promptly cancelled.

Please do cite the place in the commission report where false radar blips are mentioned. I would appreciate it if you would precisely quote the passage in question.

I have just brushed up on the report by reading the entire section "Improvising a National Defence" and there is no mention of false radar blips in this section.

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

I do not support a "Story". I am only interesting in knowing the truth. I'll leave the stories to you. NORAD's exercise was scheduled to commence at 0900hrs EDT. The first hijacking notification occured at 0837 EDT, and the exercise was promptly cancelled.

Please do cite the place in the commission report where false radar blips are mentioned. I would appreciate it if you would precisely quote the passage in question.

I have just brushed up on the report by reading the entire section "Improvising a National Defence" and there is no mention of false radar blips in this section.

-GumbootI didn't remember this being in the report, so I searched the PDF for "inject," "blip," "screen," and checked all occurrences of "radar," and did not come up with the information Unusual Subject insists is there.

[Peephole]

I've only seen "injects" mentioned in a toronto star article:

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/426239581.html?did=426239581&FMT=ABS
http://www.911readingroom.org/bib/whole_document.php?article_id=92

If anyone has more good sources on the war games being conducted, don't hesitate to list them here because I'm working on the wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_games_in_progress_on_September_11,_2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_games_in_progress_on_September_11,_2001#_note-6)

[skeptigirl]

Agreed with pretty much everything except...


I think term limits wil remove him from office.Yes. It was a shame Clinton couldn't run again but thank goodness Bush can't.

[gumboot]

I've only seen "injects" mentioned in a toronto star article:

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/426239581.html?did=426239581&FMT=ABS
http://www.911readingroom.org/bib/whole_document.php?article_id=92

If anyone has more good sources on the war games being conducted, don't hesitate to list them here because I'm working on the wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_games_in_progress_on_September_11,_2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_games_in_progress_on_September_11,_2001#_note-6)


Try this (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/fst/NORAD.pdf) document written by me... :)

In brief, NORAD was involved in a single exercise on 9/11. This was a "Vigilant Overview" type exercise - that is a NORAD-wide ("Vigilant"), Joint Chiefs of Staff approved Command-in-Chief NORAD sponsored Command Post Exercise ("Overview").

The unique exercise name is "Guardian" and it is held 2x every year.

The exercise is held in conjunction with US Strategic Command ("Global") and US Space Command ("Apollo"), however Space Command does not take part every year, and did not appear to do so in September 2001 (Space Command are not directly involved in NORAD operations).

It was comfirmed by Richard Myers - The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - in an exchange with Cynthia McKinney on March 11, 2005 that there were two CPXs underway on 9/11 - these being Global Guardian and Vigilant Guardian.

Oft cited is Richard Clarke's mention of an "Vigilant Warrior" exercise - he postulates it was an OPFOR "live-fly" element of the NORAD exercises - that is actual aircraft in the air functioning as enemy aircraft.

Note that a CPX is distinct from a FIX or "live-fly", and does not involve operational units.

"Vigilant Warrior" does not accurately reflect NORAD exercise naming regulations - the correct name would be "Amalgam Warrior". Amalgam Warrior is held every second year, and was held in 2000 and 2002, not 2001.

"Vigilant Warrior" was in fact the name of two operations in the Gulf in 1994 (Vigilant Warrior I) and 1995 (Vigilant Warrior II). These were in response to a build-up of Iraqi ground forces along the Kuwait border.

Lastly, there was a NORAD operation ongoing on 9/11. Operation Northern Vigilance commenced on 9 September 2001, and was in response to a large Russian long-range bomber exercise in Siberia. It has been standard practise since the Cold War, that when either "bloc" undertakes a major exercise, the other "bloc" deploys their forces to "shadow" the exercise, in case it is a cover for an attack.

Within a short time of the 9/11 attacks commencing, US and Russian officials contacted each other and the Russians called off their exercise, allowing the NORAD forces to return to their bases.

Operation Northern Vigilance was not an exercise, as can be determined from the prefix "Operation". Despite this, numerous media outlets have repeatedly identified it (incorrectly) as a "wargame". This has resulted in wide misinformation in the CTer camp.

My document contains more detail on these topics as well as links to source material such as the regulations that determine exercise names.

-Gumboot

[Mince]

Yes. It was a shame Clinton couldn't run again but thank goodness Bush can't.


Not so fast.

Jeb?

Wouldn't that be a hoot?

[uk_dave]

Wouldn't that be a hoot?

Are we back at bohemian grove?

:D

[skeptigirl]

Not so fast.

Jeb?

Wouldn't that be a hoot?I'm hoping GW poisoned the well.

[Bell]

Yes. It was a shame Clinton couldn't run again but thank goodness Bush can't.

The day Clinton handed over power to Bush, was he drunk or not? I think he was :)

[Loss Leader]

The day Clinton handed over power to Bush, was he drunk or not? I think he was :)

Strictly speaking, Clinton didn't hand power to anybody. It was never his power to hand over. Bush became President at 12:00 p.m., January 20 because it was 12:00 p.m., January 20. It wouldn't have mattered what Clinton did or didn't do.

I heard a story that during Nixon's last days, one high ranking official had said to another to be prepared for Nixon to seize the military and refuse to leave office. Nixon is supposed to have said years later that the thought never even flickered through his mind.

And I remember that before the Bush/Kerry election, there was some rumbling rumors that maybe Bush would cite national security and delay the election. I asked my father what he would do in that situation. He said he guessed we would have to go steal some guns.

This post has no purpose.

Nominate it.

[skeptigirl]

The day Clinton handed over power to Bush, was he drunk or not? I think he was :)Don't know but I swear GW has been slurring a few of those infamous words of his lately. Anyone else notice?

[SezMe]

The day Clinton handed over power to Bush, was he drunk or not? I think he was :)
Who, Clinton or Bush? Or Both? :)

[SezMe]

I didn't remember this being in the report, so I searched the PDF for "inject," "blip," "screen," and checked all occurrences of "radar," and did not come up with the information Unusual Subject insists is there.
I also searched the pdf (before I read Gravy's post). Here are specifics:
"false radar blips" 0 hits
"radar blips" 0 hits
"blips" 0 hits
"radar" 84 hits (BTW, about half in the notes)

I read the surronding paragraph or note for all 84 hits. There is nothing there about false radar blips.

'Jes call me Gravy, Jr. :)