9/11 and Iraq Connection?

[Dcdrac]

Iraq had no part in 9/11 at all, until Bush/Cheney and co created the false link which a lot of people still believe.

 

[epepke]

I recall the September 7 warning, Luke, but I only heard it on September 8.

 

[epepke]

Whoever makes that speech loses the 2000 election. If they both make it, Ralph Nader wins.

Quite true.

Clinton was practically pilloried by both the left and the right for sending cruise missiles into Afghanistan.

 

[Mephisto]

No one knew exactly what sort of attack was going to occur. Just that one might.

But, you're neglecting Richard Clarke's warnings regarding the use of airplanes as a weapon:
________

It is, frankly, amazing that this has fallen down the memory hole. Recall two headlines from that period. The first, from the UK Guardian on May 19, 2002, was titled 'Bush Knew of Terrorist Plot to Hijack US Planes.' The first three paragraphs of this story read:

"George Bush received specific warnings in the weeks before 11 September that an attack inside the United States was being planned by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, US government sources said yesterday. In a top-secret intelligence memo headlined 'Bin Laden determined to strike in the US', the President was told on 6 August that the Saudi-born terrorist hoped to 'bring the fight to America' in retaliation for missile strikes on al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in 1998. Bush and his aides, who are facing withering criticism for failing to act on a series of warnings, have previously said intelligence experts had not advised them domestic targets were considered at risk. However, they have admitted they were specifically told that hijacks were being planned."

Here's some more from the same source:

According to a Time Magazine story that appeared on Friday, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice is balking at requests to testify before Thomas Kean's September 11 commission under oath. She also wants her testimony to be taken behind closed doors, and not in public. The crux of her hesitation would appear on the surface to be her comments of May 16 2002, in which she used the above-referenced excuse that no one "could have predicted that they would try to use a hijacked airplane as a missile." If that excuse is reflective of reality, why does she fear to testify under oath?

Perhaps Ms. Rice fears testifying because too many facts are now in hand, thanks in no small part to the work of 9/11 widows like Kristen Breitweiser, which fly in the face of the administration's demurrals. For example, in 1993, a $150,000 study was commissioned by the Pentagon to investigate the possibility of an airplane being used to bomb national landmarks. A draft document of this was circulated throughout the Pentagon, the Justice Department and to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In 1994, a disgruntled Federal Express employee broke into the cockpit of a DC-10 with plans to crash it into a company building in Memphis.

That same year, a lone pilot crashed a small plane into a tree on the White House grounds, narrowly missing the residence. An Air France flight was hijacked by members of the Armed Islamic Group, which intended to crash the plane into the Eiffel Tower. In September 1999, a report titled "The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism" was prepared for U.S. intelligence by the Federal Research Division, an arm of the Library of Congress. It stated, "Suicide bombers belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and Semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House."

http://www.yuricareport.com/911/TwoLoudWordsPitt.html
_________

Here's another:

By Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas
Newsweek
March 29 issue - It was the day after 9/11, and President Bush, like many Americans, was looking for someone to bomb. Wandering into the White House Situation Room, the president pulled aside Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism chief of the national-security staff who had been held over from the Clinton years. According to Clarke, Bush asked: was Iraq responsible for the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington? Bush wanted the FBI and CIA to hunt for any evidence that pointed to Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein. Clarke recalls that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was also looking for a justification to bomb Iraq. Soon after the 9/11 attacks, Rumsfeld was arguing at a cabinet meeting that Afghanistan, home of Osama bin Laden's terrorist camps, did not offer "enough good targets." "We should do Iraq," Rumsfeld urged.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4571338/
_________

I think the forewarning of the possibility of an attack, and even an attack using aircraft as missiles was well within the reach of the Bush administration, but they chose to ignore it. There were no connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda, just the ones that expediently occurred at the behest of the Bush administration.

 

[Luke T.]

But, you're neglecting Richard Clarke's warnings regarding the use of airplanes as a weapon:

Did Clarke warn they would be taken over with box cutters and not guns?

It is, frankly, amazing that this has fallen down the memory hole. Recall two headlines from that period. The first, from the UK Guardian on May 19, 2002, was titled 'Bush Knew of Terrorist Plot to Hijack US Planes.' The first three paragraphs of this story read:

"George Bush received specific warnings in the weeks before 11 September that an attack inside the United States was being planned by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, US government sources said yesterday. In a top-secret intelligence memo headlined 'Bin Laden determined to strike in the US', the President was told on 6 August that the Saudi-born terrorist hoped to 'bring the fight to America' in retaliation for missile strikes on al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in 1998. Bush and his aides, who are facing withering criticism for failing to act on a series of warnings, have previously said intelligence experts had not advised them domestic targets were considered at risk. However, they have admitted they were specifically told that hijacks were being planned."

We had a long topic on here a while back in which Shanek said we should all be able to carry guns on planes. I posted irrefutable evidence that hijackings dropped from one every 15 days to about one a year after metal detectors and other security measures were introduced.

So Bush was warned of hijjackings. What exactly was he supposed to do? I want a serious answer. Do you really expect him to have implemented the current measures we have today based on a potential, non-specific threat after being in office just a few months? How long did it take to implement today's security measures post-9/11? How much has it cost?

Perhaps Ms. Rice fears testifying because too many facts are now in hand, thanks in no small part to the work of 9/11 widows like Kristen Breitweiser, which fly in the face of the administration's demurrals. For example, in 1993, a $150,000 study was commissioned by the Pentagon to investigate the possibility of an airplane being used to bomb national landmarks.

In this study, how were the theoretical suicide planes acquired? With guns? Explosives? ETA: And this study was in 1993, remember, eight years before Bush.

That same year, a lone pilot crashed a small plane into a tree on the White House grounds, narrowly missing the residence.

What measures would you have taken after this incident as a new president? ETA: And remember, this incident too place in 1993, eight years before Bush.

An Air France flight was hijacked by members of the Armed Islamic Group, which intended to crash the plane into the Eiffel Tower.

In 1994. With guns. What did Clinton do as a result of this hijacking to protect us?

In September 1999, a report titled "The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism" was prepared for U.S. intelligence by the Federal Research Division, an arm of the Library of Congress. It stated, "Suicide bombers belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and Semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House."

That's not how it went down, now was it?

 

[punchdrunk]

An Iraqi-born friend of mine turned up, we looked at each other and synchronously said "Bin Laden".

Thank god, we've finally found the 9/11 - Iraq connection. Mission accomplished.

 

[Luke T.]

Even today, an Al Qeada terrorist could rent a pretty big plane like an executive Flexjet and then fly it packed with high explosives (C-4 and Semtex) into a nuclear power plant or a schoolful of handicapped toddlers.

What should we do about that?

 

[Mephisto]

Did Clarke warn they would be taken over with box cutters and not guns?

How can you expect Clarke to know that? What difference would it make? Guns, box cutters, they're both made of metal that detectors in airports SHOULD have picked up. You would think that after receiving a warning like that - the CIA, the FBI and FAA . . . SOMEONE would have been notified and taken better measures.

We had a long topic on here a while back in which Shanek said we should all be able to carry guns on planes. I posted irrefutable evidence that hijackings dropped from one every 15 days to about one a year after metal detectors and other security measures were introduced.

We HAD metal detectors in place before 9/11. If they were so effective why didn't they stop a group of men from carrying box cutters on board an airplane?

So Bush was warned of hijjackings. What exactly was he supposed to do? I want a serious answer. Do you really expect him to have implemented the current measures we have today based on a potential, non-specific threat after being in office just a few months? How long did it take to implement today's security measures post-9/11? How much has it cost?

I would suspect he could have flooded key airports on the east coast with warnings, FBI agents, CIA agents, local police and airport security. He could have issued a statement to the FAA signaling the necessity to CAREFULLY screen all passengers for metal objects before they board (remember, we already had the metal detectors in place). Besides, look at the measure this administration took on the non-specific threat of Al Qaeda members using telephones or email to keep in contact with those in the U.S. It their main excuse for wiretapping, yet it's a non-specific threat.

In this study, how were the theoretical suicide planes acquired? With guns? Explosives? ETA: And this study was in 1993, remember, eight years before Bush.

Yes, EIGHT YEARS and no one questioned Condeleeza Rice when she said that no body could have conceived that airplanes would be used as missiles. It seems there were plenty of examples of the potential for this type of attack, but we were caught with our pants down, why?

What measures would you have taken after this incident as a new president? ETA: And remember, this incident too place in 1993, eight years before Bush.

See above
___________

from the link
An Air France flight was hijacked by members of the Armed Islamic Group, which intended to crash the plane into the Eiffel Tower

In 1994. With guns. What did Clinton do as a result of this hijacking to protect us?

Nothing, this hijacking happened in France. He just continued getting hummers.



From the link
In September 1999, a report titled "The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism" was prepared for U.S. intelligence by the Federal Research Division, an arm of the Library of Congress. It stated, "Suicide bombers belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and Semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House."

That's not how it went down, now was it?

I don't see what difference that made - there was apparently enough fuel and force to completely destroy the Twin Towers. You did note, I hope, that the targets mentioned were pretty much right on.

 

[Cleon]

Even today, an Al Qeada terrorist could rent a pretty big plane like an executive Flexjet and then fly it packed with high explosives (C-4 and Semtex) into a nuclear power plant or a schoolful of handicapped toddlers.

And someone with a bit of spare time and energy can fashion radioactive material in their garage or toss some pipe bombs into a kindergarten.

We could come up with doomsday scenarios and horrific terrorist plots all day, but it would accomplish little beyond giving Tom Clancy ideas for more books.

What should we do about that?

What can we do about it? I'm not saying nothing can't or shouldn't be done, but a certain point, you have to question just how much you can reasonably do.

You can turn the country into a police-state and start imprisoning any and every Muslim, but terrorism will still be a possibility.

Sooner or later you have to go on living, y'know. You can't live in perpetual fear.

 

[headscratcher4]

Even today, an Al Qeada terrorist could rent a pretty big plane like an executive Flexjet and then fly it packed with high explosives (C-4 and Semtex) into a nuclear power plant or a schoolful of handicapped toddlers.

What should we do about that?

Attack Iraq even more. And, if that doesn't work, attack Iraq again. By focusing our resources on Iraq, we will effectively ensure that the leadership of AlQeda can't escape into the mountains of Pakistan, nor that it is able to build any support for its goals among dissafected Arab/Muslim masses. Clearly, the only protection we have against future terrorism is to invade Iraq.

 

[Luke T.]

I would suspect he could have flooded key airports on the east coast with warnings, FBI agents, CIA agents, local police and airport security. He could have issued a statement to the FAA signaling the necessity to CAREFULLY screen all passengers for metal objects before they board (remember, we already had the metal detectors in place). Besides, look at the measure this administration took on the non-specific threat of Al Qaeda members using telephones or email to keep in contact with those in the U.S. It their main excuse for wiretapping, yet it's a non-specific threat.

Talk about disappearing down a memory hole! We're talking pre-9/11, not today. Flood airports with police and FBI? Screen passengers then the way we do today and snarl up airports? And for how long should these measures be implement based on a warning and a 1993 study and 1994 hijacking?

How would those wiretaps go down pre-9/11. You think there's a stink NOW? Just imagine back then without a 9/11 to justify them.

EIGHT YEARS and no one questioned Condeleeza Rice when she said that no body could have conceived that airplanes would be used as missiles.

Was Rice shown the 1993 study prior to 9/11? Again, so what was supposed to be done about it?

It seems there were plenty of examples of the potential for this type of attack, but we were caught with our pants down, why?

Our pants are still down. A bio attack on a water reservoir, a rented plane into a nuclear power plant, blow up a bridge during rush hour. A million possibilities. See how easy it is for anyone to think of targets and ways to blow them up and kill lots of people? Imagine the list of potential targets the government thinks about every day and are unable to do anything about it unless you want to REALLY tear up the Constitution and contribute every dollar you make to the government to "protect" you.

I don't see what difference that made - there was apparently enough fuel and force to completely destroy the Twin Towers. You did note, I hope, that the targets mentioned were pretty much right on.

Gosh. The Pentagon as a target. It took real genius to guess that one. And since the WTC had been attacked in 1993, it didn't take a genius to see that as a target, too. And then there's the Sears Tower, the Space Needle, the St. Louis Arch, on and on and on and on, not to mention our seaports.

If any of these things I have "predicted" happen in the future, do I get the Million Dollar prize?

 

[Luke T.]

What can we do about it? I'm not saying nothing can't or shouldn't be done, but a certain point, you have to question just how much you can reasonably do.

You can turn the country into a police-state and start imprisoning any and every Muslim, but terrorism will still be a possibility.

Sooner or later you have to go on living, y'know. You can't live in perpetual fear.

That's exactly my point.

 

[Mephisto]

T
Gosh. The Pentagon as a target. It took real genius to guess that one. And since the WTC had been attacked in 1993, it didn't take a genius to see that as a target, too.

Great, the everyday, average, run-of-the-mill skeptic can guess where the targets are, why can't our government, especially AFTER they've had warnings?

 

[Luke T.]

Great, the everyday, average, run-of-the-mill skeptic can guess where the targets are, why can't our government, especially AFTER they've had warnings?

I just don't see the American public putting up with the security measures we have today prior to 9/11.

Just look at the bitching about the wiretaps of phone conversations between Al Qaeda and a U.S. caller. This doesn't even affect anyone's personal liberty unless they are a terrorist, and yet there is a giant hue and cry about it. And I am one of the huers/criers.

Now suppose we suffer another attack that was planned over the phone between the U.S. and Al Qaeda sometime in the future. The American public will then be screaming for every overseas phone call to be monitored.

And as a joke, I recently posted:

If another terrorist attack happens on US soil, Gitmo will look like Disneyland, and there will be an Abu Graib on every corner. The Department of Homeland Security will be consolidated with the FCC to form the Department of STFU. The Patriot Act will have thirty-eight pages of additional "law enforcement tools" added, including the granting of subway token booth attendants the power to shoot gate jumpers on sight. The terror alert color code system will open up the jumbo box of crayons. Oregon will finally become a red state. The Girl Scouts will ban any den mother who has had an abortion. The only postage stamp you will be able to buy is one with the ten commandments on it. Canada will begin a large canal project that will be seen as a thinly veiled attempt to chop themselves off the North American continent. Pat Robertson will require surgery for priapism ("abnormal persistent erection of the penis"). And the Democrats will nominate George W. Bush for a third term.

 

[epepke]

How can you expect Clarke to know that? What difference would it make? Guns, box cutters, they're both made of metal that detectors in airports SHOULD have picked up.

So are zippers, and a box cutter has way less metal than a zipper.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Clinton was practically pilloried by both the left and the right for sending cruise missiles into Afghanistan.

That's because it violated one of the most basic principles of warfare which America should have learned from Vietnam: go in to win, or don't go in at all. What military objective did firing cruise missles achieve? It just pissed off the Muslim world even more, without seriously harming al Qaeda. And on top of that, he also fired missles at a Sudanese building which apparently was a completely civilian target.

If there's one thing the world learned from the Clinton presidency, it's that America is completely dedicated to world justice, and will go to any lengths to protect it. Unless, of course, that involves putting Americans at risk, in which case you can do what you want.

 

[DavidJames]

TIf there's one thing the world learned from the Clinton presidency, it's that America is completely dedicated to world justice, and will go to any lengths to protect it. Unless, of course, that involves putting Americans at risk, in which case you can do what you want.

Yes, and what we've learned from Bush is if you attack America, we'll invade some other country which had nothing to do with it and get lots of the good guys and gals killed in the process.

 

[Art Vandelay]

No, we already learned that from Roosevelt. What we learned from Bush is that if you invade a country which has attacked you and your allies, there will be no shortage of people to completely misrepresent the situation.

 

[CapelDodger]

That's a possibility, but it's unlikely that they would go to all the trouble of mounting a major offensive just to explain the chatter. A better, and easier, thing to do would be to bomb a bus in the US or something.

That's a good point. Reading back, I didn't intend to appear so certain. I strongly suspect that 9/11 was co-ordinated with Massood's murder, which was co-ordinated with a Taliban offensive that was coming anyway. Massood's murder was clearly an Al-Qaeda operation, not Taliban. It brought Al-Qaeda up on the radar-screen but in an Afghan context. It may have been Al-Qaeda's estimation that this would be seen, by US analysts, as confirming an Afghanistan-first policy. What better time to launch 9/11?

Al-Qaeda seems to have a fetish about co-ordination as proof of their potency. You can see their point. Putting a bomb on a bus is not hard, it proves nothing. Bomb 20 at the same time and you've demonstrated something.

 

[CapelDodger]

I immediately thought al Qaeda also, but mostly because I'd always paid attention to that kind of stuff. There had been numerous stories in the news in the months prior to 9/11 about how the Taliban were close to controlling all of Afghanistan, and their links to al Qaeda. Linking them to 9/11 was a logical conclusion.

You'll recall that the imminent victory of the Taliban had been reported for several years before 2001. Each Spring Offensive would be the final one, but it never turned out that way. How much of that is down to the genius of Ahmad Shah Massood (may his tribe increase) is debatable, but I suspect a lot. OK, I'll go hands-up, I'm convinced. Unable to beat him on the battlefield, his opponents resorted to assassination. They have no concept of honour.