Why didn't Bush blame Saddam for 911?

[joeunderdog]

If you buy into the theory that BFEE has no interest in having their family friend OBL dead or in prison,

and if you believe that Bush's love for the Saudi's is only eaqualed by his PNAC love for Iraq's strategic MidEast position in the Land of Oil and his contempt for Saddam,

and if you buy into MIHOP and think that the real perps of this tragedy are not the ones being blamed in the press,

then wouldn't it have been easier to blame Iraq/Saddam for 911 than ficticious WMD's as the primay reason to invade Iraq?

People are still angry about 911. Now they're also angry about the bugus WMD claims. Why didn't Bushco forsee this and just use a different fabrication about who did 911 and why? For those of us who believe BushCo made up the Whodunnit of 911 anyway, why blame your pals the Saudi's when Saddam fits your overall agenda better?

It's been buggin me, so I just had to ask.

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:


For those still not ready for MIHOP...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848

[951-Riverside]

1. They need a ghost to chase after

Saddam actually exists and will speak for himself OBL/UBL on the other hand... Hmmm

[Jara sang]

2. That would have prompted more investigation of 9/11.

and you know they don't want that.

[joeunderdog]

4. It has instead led to investigation of the Bush/Bin Laden connection.

I think this is a far more vulnerable area for Bushco. I believe the Saudi connection is the Achilles for Shrubco. They don't have as much to lose with investigations into other relationships.

[WilliamPitt]

3. He did

"We've removed an ally of al Qaeda." - Bush, 5/1/03

[libertypirate]

19. They tried.... on 9/11... Truth stranger than fiction

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1842

Here is a transcript of the exchange:

CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."


it's also in "The Constitution in Crisis"


http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/iraqrept.html

[Skittles]

5. they thought Iraq would be a cakewalk

that the end would justify the means; that is how incompetent and deluded these gop bastards really are

[leftofthedial]

6. they needed a boogeyman, not a victory

and they knew that Iraq had no hope of defending itself

they refused Saddam's surrender pre-war.

[joeunderdog]

10. Couldn't Saddam be the BoogeyMan?

Most people knew him, but not OBL, prior to 911. Most also thought he was truly evil. He was packaged for retail, but they chose a relatively unknown figure instead. They could have made sure he was never found and justified the Occupation that is plaguing them in the polls every day.

[leftofthedial]

11. they needed to "win" in Iraq

that meant, necessarily, that Saddam's tenure as "boogeyman" would be very short.

To rule by fear for the new millenium, they need an Emanuel Goldstein--a boogeyman with staying power.

Bin Laden--Zarqawi--whoever becomes the next manufactured #2 ad infinitum.

[tatertop]

12. You are a better strategist than I. That does make perfect sense.

[European Socialist]

7. Wondered myself--I think the U.S. involvement was limited to...

keeping the FBI and air defenses out of the way. Elements of Israel and Saudi Arabia chose the operatives.

[shadowknows69]

8. Probably simple incompetence

I can picture Bush slapping himself on the forhead after announcing OBL was the perp and saying "Oh, shit that's right Osama is coming in for drinks this weekend it was Saddam's oil we need. Oops. My bad. Dick, Don, Condi, Colin could you fix this for me?"

[mitchtv]

9. Whatta ya mean , he didn't

Of course he tried, but just couldn't get away with it. How did most Americans end up believing Saddam was involved?

[Sinti]

13. If they only wanted to attack Iraq that would have been logical

However, they want to attack and install our troops (if only as advisers) in several nations. The PNAC papers, along with several others, lay this out in an almost step-by-step fashion.

Al Qaeda had already been set up over several years as the new boogieman, basically since the Soviet Union fell. Al Qaeda is the perfect enemy, it has no face, it is a shadow. Al Qaeda is whoever and whatever * and his minions say it is. It can exist in any nation, any city. It could be your neighbor if they decided to make it so. If they told you your (perhaps darker skinned) neighbor was part of a sleeper cell, would you risk giving aid and comfort to the enemy?

Additionally, Al Qaeda, and OBL, began it's life as the Mujahadeen, fighting the Soviets with our guns and money way back in the day, supported by both the CIA and the DoD. We LOVED the Mujahadeen, they were heroes fighting the evil red menace. OBL was "our man in Kandahar," he was on the CIA payroll. The logical conclusion, given those facts, would be that he's controllable, unless you believe that the CIA tolerates assets that go rogue on them and let's them inflict damage on us. Sorry, they know their business, they would have offed him if he had gone rogue, immediately, and with great prejudice.

Al Qaeda is the perfect, and un-killable enemy. They can wave it in front of you to line their pockets and use your flesh as cannon fodder until you have no blood left at all.

JMHO

[brindis_desala]

18. Nice to see someone reads more than WAPO and USA today

[joeunderdog]

20. Best explanation yet and VERY plausible, but

Iraq has turned out to be IN-finite in duration, a BoogeyMan that keeps having offspring. They could blame alot on the Iraqis, and it would be very believable with every Military body returned to the States. Instead the body count works against them, rather than for them. Poppy Bush predicted this years ago, so it's not like this was unforseeable.

In my mind, leaving OBL out of it would have been far cleaner, would have been an active issue for decades of Iraq occupation, and would have actually allowed them to maintain political capital for being in Iraq. Instead, every day they're there, it costs them politically.

[playkate]

14. I think that's a REALLY good question.

I think the answer can tell us a lot of things perhaps we'd rather not know.

[Sinti]

15. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[newyawker99]

16. Hi playkate!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[SmokingJacket]

17. I think you're right, and I think there are a ton of things we don't know.

My guess is that the whole LIHOP/MIHOP scenario needed cooperation from Saudis... and Bush didn't have any connections to Saddam that could be exploited.

[chookie]

21. Interesting observation

I've not yet seen your specific question raised before and it begs to be answered.

Why, indeed, when we have evidence that from Day One the Monkey administration was angling for an excuse to attack and effect regime change in Iraq, was the opportunity of the horrific events of 9/11 not used to serve that specific objective?

My observation was the country was in shock for at least 2 days, but if was after then that the NeoCons climbed out from under their dark mossy rocks and were calling for wide war in the Middle East. But even so, Rummy wrote a note the day of the attack -- "Gather all things related and not related" -- meaning, I suppose, get to the bottom of who was part of the apparently terroristic (and therefore stateless) attack but also start "finding" evidence that states, like Iraq, were involved, in order to fulfill the earnest hope of the NeoCons, that a new "Pearl Harbor" would galvanize America into embracing their extensive ambitions of widespread military confrontation in the Middle East.

Another suggestion: It is my view that the administration was aware that an attack was looming, and that they had a pretty good idea who was behind the planning of the attack and how it was going to be carried out (i.e. the August 6 PDB). Enough was known about the MO of Al Qaeda -- well planned spectacular terroristic attacks carried out on an unprecedented scale of military operation -- to raise the suspicion of a wide range of people (not merely the LIHOP crowd who dearly hoped for such an event to sway public opinion in their favor), but mainstream intelligence and military analysts and politicians of Al Qaeda involvement . There was nothing in the MO to connect the methods of the attack to Iraq. But, as I said above, Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations began to be named as contributing or aiding the attack within days of 9/11 in order to begin the PNAC plan.

The Pentagon cooperated with the Bush adminstration when it came to operations in Afghanistan, but many military planners took great exception to the ambitions of the NeoCons and objected to invasion of Iraq and possibly other countries. In late October/early November of 2001, there was a lot of shifting of positions of influence within the Pentagon, ordered by Rumsfeld, in which he replaced the dissenters with yes men and loyalists, even though they were not as experienced and competent as the original officers. Hence, the disaster which quickly ensued....