[vesiasmepay]

Saddams monkeying around with inspectors That was a reason for going in, for those of us who bothered to listen to the actual speeches and not the snipets on the news.

[PetrZimin]

IMHO, Bush could not have gotten public support for the war without 9/11. Albright said the same thing during testimony. Clinton wanted to invade, but he knew he couldn't do it because he could not get the votes in Congress. She said everything changed because of 9/11.

The mood of the American people was pro-war after 9/11. It wasn't before 9/11 and is not now. Iraq happened because of 9/11 even if Saddam had nothing to do with the attacks.

[iodillalm]

Originally posted by Wycoff


I didn't hurt that there were stong implications coming from the adminstration that Saddam was behind 9/11. The majority of the U.S. believed this until very recently, despite repeated Bush post-invasion denials that Saddam had anything to do with it. Bull.

Crap.

Nonsense.

Propaganda.

[bertanu]

Originally posted by Ned


Bull.

Crap.

Nonsense.

Propaganda. You mean the "leaked" lies of the Bush administration that there were strong links between Saddam and Osama, and the seemingly never-ending ramblings of Dick Cheney in TV shows where he parroted the "Saddam has definite ties with al-Qaeda" talking point ad infinitum? Yeah, it was. What's even more terrible is the revisionist history the tools and puppets of this administration are so blindly taking part of right now, trying to pretend that none of this ever happened

[poonnassunlix]

Bush would of lost in 2004 because there was no war to distract from the sluggish economy and the destruction of the middle class via outsourcing.

[Creelaleps]

Originally posted by VJ

You mean the "leaked" lies of the Bush administration that there were strong links between Saddam and Osama, and the seemingly never-ending ramblings of Dick Cheney in TV shows where he parroted the "Saddam has definite ties with al-Qaeda" talking point ad infinitum? Yeah, it was. What's even more terrible is the revisionist history the tools and puppets of this administration are so blindly taking part of right now, trying to pretend that none of this ever happened Now, this is all true. The admin tried to show links between AQ and Saddam to support its argument that Saddam's possession of WMD was a threat to the US because he could give them to AQ. Cheney did emphasize the purported discussion between on of the AQ 'jackers and Saddam's intelligence in Czechoslovakia, IIRC, but to support the point that Saddam and AQ had contacts and were working together.

Neither Bush nor Powell nor Rice ever argued that we needed to go after Saddam because he was behind 9/11, nor do I recall the administration ever saying that Saddam was behind 9/11. The opponents of the admin, including the NYT, said that the 9/11 commission had "refuted" the administrations claims of an operational link between Saddam and AQ. The problem with this is that the administration never claimed an operational link, but contacts and possible support, which the 9/11 commission agreed the evidence supported.

What it comes down to is that there are repeated accusations that Bush lied to us about Saddam being behind 9/11, when Bush never claimed this at all. It is pure BS. It is pure crap. It is propaganda.

The next time someone says this, I would like a direct quote from Bush or Powell and not from an anti-Bush source.

[vicgirl]

Originally posted by Ned


Now, this is all true. The admin tried to show links between AQ and Saddam to support its argument that Saddam's possession of WMD was a threat to the US because he could give them to AQ. Cheney did emphasize the purported discussion between on of the AQ 'jackers and Saddam's intelligence in Czechoslovakia, IIRC, but to support the point that Saddam and AQ had contacts and were working together.

Neither Bush nor Powell nor Rice ever argued that we needed to go after Saddam because he was behind 9/11, nor do I recall the administration ever saying that Saddam was behind 9/11. The opponents of the admin, including the NYT, said that the 9/11 commission had "refuted" the administrations claims of an operational link between Saddam and AQ. The problem with this is that the administration never claimed an operational link, but contacts and possible support, which the 9/11 commission agreed the evidence supported.

What it comes down to is that there are repeated accusations that Bush lied to us about Saddam being behind 9/11, when Bush never claimed this at all. It is pure BS. It is pure crap. It is propaganda.

The next time someone says this, I would like a direct quote from Bush or Powell and not from an anti-Bush source. The Bush Administration never openly said Saddam had something to do with 9/11, but their lackeys on Faux Nooze and AM talk radio pushed that BS as hard as they could. I STILL run into ignorant morons that think Sadarm was involved in 9/11 and that meme surely didn't pop out of thin air.

[GentlieGant]

Dont we have enough Iraq debates, and George Bush debates, on the OT?

Lets try to discuss history here, not current events. I wont go so far as to suggest pre-disco era (the SHWI rule for political topics) but Id say anything since the fall of the USSR (December 1991 or so) is too recent to be "history". Gulf War 1, yes, George HW Bush yes, the '89, yes, but Clinton no, Dubya no, Tony Blair no, Russia under Yeltsin (as in independent state rather than an SSR) no.

Mandatory on topic material

Is there really any proof that Europeans used to say that anything since Waterloo was "current events"?

Did Chou En Lai really say, when asked about the effect of the French Revolution "its too soon to say" ?

[dogdesign]

Originally posted by germanos


The question was: what if 9/11 hadn't happened.. That was the question indeed, and it degenerated into a debate about George Tenet, the Iraq war, the Bush administration, and other things that have been debated ad nauseum in OT, as it inevitably would.


Where would you draw the line between history and current events?

[HRCPda7R]

Originally posted by germanos


I'm not sure.

But if you find a thread on 9/11 to recent, why don't you just stay out of it? This forum isn't exactly spammed with 'recent history' at the moment, so I don't see the problem.

That said, I think an event of six years ago can certainly be viewed in a historic context. The link I provided with the interview of Tenet on CBS (in confluence with the book he is publishing) will be one of the first and probably one of the major historic sources for years to come.

I did question if I should post this 'news' in the OT, but I deliberately choose to post it in this thread, where it seemed more appropriate given the OP and Patroklos' response.

I'm sorry if I irred you. The OP was a pretty good example of whats wrong with this sort of thing. Basically a political rant about evil neocons, etc, etc.

OTOH threads about WW2 have degenerated pretty quickly here as well. And and some pretty decent thread ideas have been pretty much ignored.

I was one of the supporters of a history forum, but I now think it was a mistake. Give it a merciful death, and move this stuff back to OT.

[ToifvT5S]

Originally posted by Odin
destruction of the middle class via outsourcing.

[Signabeademia]

Originally posted by molly bloom


What if there was no disco ?

The horror ! The horror !


THAT would be a decent what if.

I dont know enough about the music disco evolved out of to know if theres a plausible POD that prevents disco though. Any ideas?

[kathy]

Originally posted by VJ

yeah, and then there were those of us who looked at the evidence behind those speeches, ie. actions behind the words...

Did you know that all of the USA's supposed "rock-solid", "slam dunk" evidence of Iraq's existing WMD's were proven to be forgeries within 80 hours of their presentation in the UN?

But that didn't matter now did it, because some people were too busy proclaiming the superiority of their cause because they had loyally listened to lie-filled speeches in full instead of just their compilations.

Upcoming: Vicious ad hominem from Patroklos, who still hasn't figured out that there weren't any evidence of WMD and Iraqi government did comply with the inspectors right before the invasion, like the weapons inspector team said. Oh Patro, what would we do in these Iraq threads without you There would be a consensus of reality, and that would be dreadfully boring because it'd give us an opportunity to look forward instead of bickering over what has happened in the past. forgeries? source?

[yasmin]

Not so much, I signed up for four years, they aren't going to let me get away that easy.

I probably wouldn't be looking a 8 months in Afghanistant though, third deployment in as many years. We shall see.

[PIORARMADDERI]

Thats what I said

Alot of jobs over there just require a competent manager, not anything service specific. If I go I will be in charge of allocating money for reconstruction projects. Not actually picking the projects, just making sure the money gets where it is supposed to the way it is supposed to. And some unrelated convoy work as well.

Of course that can change on a whim.

[UpperMan]

Without 9/11, Bush would have been a one-term wonder like his father.

[cwgwowcom]

Without 9/11 would gas prices be as high today? Yes.

Would the handling of Katrina have cost him the 2004 election? No. Though alot of things would be different about that disaster without 9/11. No DHS, for example.

Would he have gone after Saddam Hussein anyway? Don't know, but lean towards yes.

[Barryrich]

Originally posted by Ecthy
What Ifs are stupid, throw rocks at them. No, some what ifs are phrased or explored stupidly.

Just because history turned out one way doesn't mean it necessarily would have done.

Chance versus causality, as Cabaret Voltaire put on the B-side of their excellent single, 'Silent Command'...

[soSldI4i]

My 2 cents...


Iraq was going to happen at some point during Bush's presidency. How do I know?

I was in the army stationed in the mideast at the time.

#1 In Feb '01 (pre-9/11) we bombed the hell out of Iraq. Most bombing since the Gulf War. They were trying to provvoke a response from Saddam.

#2 In 18 September 2002 I get my new assignment with ARCENT, the Army's component to CENTCOM. I go to work in the plans section. The LTC there tells me they've been working on this invasion plan since Sep 13th...I say fine Sep 13, 2002...He says no, Sep 13th 2001. This thing is going to happen regardless.

#3 Jan-Feb 2003. I'm in Kuwait waiting for this thing to kick off. Saddam breaks down and lets inspectors in. I think that means I get to go home early. I look behind me and the same LTC is there. He tells me "trust me if its not today, someday we are going in." So this officer who worked in "secret bunker" that made the plan knows this I figure he saw or heard something to come tothat conclusion, and I never heard "because of 9/11"


Last notes related to my experience on the WMD.

#1 Pre war intel I saw pictures of warehouses getting cleared out then the next 24 hour photo showed the UN inspectors coming. So something was being hidden and we know the rooms were bugged

#2 While we ar going in we kept fine football field burial areas of pesticides. Most pesticides have a diluted nerve agent base. Not that had to up to nerve gas.

#3 Yellow Cake in Iraq was stored by IAEA. Before we got there some stole a lot of this yellow cake uranium. Never heard that on the news.


So what do I think happened to the WMDs? Moved. And look at the Bush admin behavior, the Dems and the opposition get to poke the admin constantly for not finding WMDs and the adminstration just shrugs. This is the same administration that rabidly attacks any oposition to any policy. No one sees that as odd?

My best guess: In the three months Saddam buried but mostly shipped the WMDs out of country, mainly to Syria. The Bush admin has been quiet because remember the invasion was supposed to make America safe from Saddam arming terrorists with WMDs. But what happens? Because we invaded (and Saddam guessed three months in advance) Bush actually accelerated the loose WMD problem. Before the invasion we knew Saddam had WMD, after the invasion we have no idea where WMDs are. Not much safer right?

So if the Bush admin said its gone and we don't know where or to who it undermines the Pre-Emption doctrine (remember that one?) it undermines that military intervention is the only way to America safe, and it undermines that Bush's global war on terror has made America safer.

So thats my guess...the WMDs are loose and the admin prefers saying "whoops they aren't there but better safe than sorry" instead of saying "whoops, we don't know where they are, guess we're sorry your not safe vote in '04"

[ivandiadser]

Originally posted by Patroklos
You have that backwards. Since I was there, no I don't

[/quote]
Hmmmm....

CENTCOM (you know what that stand for right?) making plans to invade a country run by a dictator that regularly illuminates our aircraft? Do you think we didn't have plans to do that since 1991? How long do you think we had plans for Iran? Plans to bail out Isreal? How about what happens in an Indian/Pakistan nuclear war?

Planing is what the military does. If we went to war with Mali and there wasn't a plan in place, most of the usuals here would go WTF?
[/quote]


Guess you haven't served in a snior hq. I saw our war planes we hade a contingency plan called Sudden Lightning - incase Saddam invaded Kuwait first. Iran plan nope. We cleaned out our safe in 2004. Found stuff about Iran in '89...thats it. After Baghdad fell we had a few weeks where we didn't know where to plan next. Thoughts thrown around were syria, pakistan, and Iran. Guess which we settled on.

Have you worked on war plans before? I did for North Korea when I was stationed at the DMZ and other plans in this headquarters. Planning, and deliberate planning, is a resource intensive process. We don't have the manpower or resources to plan for action with every country. Y?ou may get concept documents, but they aren't plans with full section assistance and staff esimates and full blown MDMP.


Yeah I can't see why senior officers would want their rank and file ready and prepared for invading regardless of what was going on outside of your unit at that jucture in history. I'm not a junior officer and I was working with the guy for several months. Have you worked with Colonels before? (or even the military?) its not like that not from my active years.

but thanks for the input. I'm just putting out the real facts as I experienced them and i didn't mention anything about the classified stuff