September 12th, 2001 - Iraq - True?

[The_Bith_Shuffle]

A friend of mine just said that a few important Republicans, including McCain, said that the US would probably have to invade Iraq as well as Afghanistan on September 12th, 2001.

Is this true?

[mack]

I don’t know about McCain, but according to Richard Clarke, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was gung-ho for attacking Iraq.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld almost immediately urged President Bush to consider bombing Iraq after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York and Washington, says a former senior administration counterterrorism aide.

Richard A. Clarke, the White House counterterrorism coordinator at the time, recounts in a forthcoming book details of a meeting the day after the terrorist attacks during which top officials considered the U.S. response. Even then, he said, they were certain that al-Qaida was to blame and there was no hint of Iraqi involvement.

“Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq,” Clarke said. “We all said, 'But no, no, al-Qaida is in Afghanistan.”

Clarke, who is expected to testify Tuesday before a federal panel reviewing the attacks, said Rumsfeld complained in the meeting that “there aren’t any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.”

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/iraq/2458989.html

[SenorBeef]

I don’t know about the timing, but Cheney and Rumsfeld were part of the Project for a New American Century think tank which desperately hoped for a “pearl harbor” type event to justify the US going nuts on Iraq. They sent an official letter to the president on Sep 20 (9 days after 9/11) urging him to invade Iraq.

It’s pretty clear that the neocons in power were waiting for something - anything - to justify their hardon for going after Iraq for quite a while, so it’s not implausible. I’m not aware of anyone in a high level of government which specifically advocated it on Sep 12, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

[mutantmoose]

At 2:40 p.m. in the afternoon of September 11, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was issuing rapid orders to his aides to look for evidence of Iraqi involvement, according to notes taken by senior policy official Stephen Cambone. “Best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H.” — meaning Saddam Hussein — “at same time. Not only UBL” (Osama bin Laden), Cambone’s notes quoted Rumsfeld as saying. “Need to move swiftly — Near term target needs — go massive — sweep it all up. Things related and not.”

Donald Rumsfeld

[John_Mace]

@SenorBeef

I don’t know about the timing, but Cheney and Rumsfeld were part of the Project for a New American Century think tank which desperately hoped for a “pearl harbor” type event to justify the US going nuts on Iraq. They sent an official letter to the president on Sep 20 (9 days after 9/11) urging him to invade Iraq.

This being GQ, you’ll have to supply a better cite to support your claim that they “desperately hoped for” this.

[SenorBeef]

Rumsfeld’s immediate reaction to 9/11 was to “judge whether good enough to hit” Hussein. Not to figure out who was responsible, but to see if they could somehow tie the event to Hussein. PNAC (including Cheney, Rumsfeld, and various neo-con friends) had a stated goal of invading Iraq and turning the US into an imperial power, but acknowledged that the change would have to happen gradually barring a catalyzing Pearl harbor type event. When that event happened, they jumped on the opportunity to push their agenda even though they knew it was unrelated to the actual event itself.

It might be unsubstantiated for me to say that they “desperately hoped” that it happened, but it certainly helped forward their goals. I can’t cite their hopes, only infer from their words and actions. I gave information about some of the basic goals of PNAC and the neocon foreign policy agenda. The actual history is pretty obvious to anyone who cares to look at it objectively.

[John_Mace]

@SenorBeef

Rumsfeld’s immediate reaction to 9/11 was to “judge whether good enough to hit” Hussein. Not to figure out who was responsible, but to see if they could somehow tie the event to Hussein. PNAC (including Cheney, Rumsfeld, and various neo-con friends) had a stated goal of invading Iraq and turning the US into an imperial power, but acknowledged that the change would have to happen gradually barring a catalyzing Pearl harbor type event. When that event happened, they jumped on the opportunity to push their agenda even though they knew it was unrelated to the actual event itself.

It might be unsubstantiated for me to say that they “desperately hoped” that it happened, but it certainly helped forward their goals. I can’t cite their hopes, only infer from their words and actions. I gave information about some of the basic goals of PNAC and the neocon foreign policy agenda. The actual history is pretty obvious to anyone who cares to look at it objectively.

One can easily make a case that the state of mind was anywhere between “desperately hoped for” a Pearl Harbor type situation and “desperately feared that” it would take a Pearl Harbor type situation for Americans to take the actions they thought were necessary in the M.E.

[SenorBeef]

That doesn’t strike me as a logical interpretation of the quotes and links given in this thread. If they acknowledge that their agenda will require gradual change, it does not really make sense to describe their attitude as desperate fear.

Anyway, I’m not tied to that particular point, so I’ll admit I have no hard quotes to support the “desperately hoped for” idea, it’s an interpretation of the available information as well as a judgement on the characters of people like Rumsfeld and Cheney. The readers can judge for themselves.

But I wanted to introduce PNAC as further evidence that they were willing to use any political event to push their agenda in regards to Iraq and American imperialism. I believe it to be relevant to the thread asking about neocon statements about Iraq in the aftermath of 9/11.

[John_Mace]

@SenorBeef

That doesn’t strike me as a logical interpretation of the quotes and links given in this thread. If they acknowledge that their agenda will require gradual change, it does not really make sense to describe their attitude as desperate fear.

Sure it does. I know we need to make changes to prevent global warming. I “desperately fear that” it will take a catastrophic environmental event to get Americans to realize that. Same dif.

Anyway, I’m not tied to that particular point, so I’ll admit I have no hard quotes to support the “desperately hoped for” idea, it’s an interpretation of the available information as well as a judgement on the characters of people like Rumsfeld and Cheney. The readers can judge for themselves.

OK

But I wanted to introduce PNAC as further evidence that they were willing to use any political event to push their agenda in regards to Iraq and American imperialism. I believe it to be relevant to the thread asking about neocon statements about Iraq in the aftermath of 9/11.

True. But even without that, it is well established that Iraq was brought up almost immediately after 9/11/01, as noted in the 1st reply to the OP.

[SenorBeef]

@John_Mace

Sure it does. I know we need to make changes to prevent global warming. I “desperately fear that” it will take a catastrophic environmental event to get Americans to realize that. Same dif.

Okay, I can accept this as an intepretation if you feel as though they thought that Iraq presented a clear and inevitable danger to the US that would otherwise go unnoticed barring such an event. I’m not convinced that this was their attitude, but we’re straying from the GQness of the question, so point taken.

True. But even without that, it is well established that Iraq was brought up almost immediately after 9/11/01, as noted in the 1st reply to the OP.

Fair enough. I’m not quite sure what the goal of the OP was, but if he was trying to investigate how quickly some members of the government moved to start gearing up support for an invasion for Iraq after 9/11, I thought the history of PNAC and its members might be relevant information. If the OP was simply looking for a factual yes/no, that falls outside the bounds of his question.

[John_Mace]

@SenorBeef

Fair enough. I’m not quite sure what the goal of the OP was, but if he was trying to investigate how quickly some members of the government moved to start gearing up support for an invasion for Iraq after 9/11, I thought the history of PNAC and its members might be relevant information. If the OP was simply looking for a factual yes/no, that falls outside the bounds of his question.

Yes. Sorry if I made it sound like I was dismissing that. It is good background info.

According to Clarke, the PNAC crew were predisposed to focus on Iraq immediately after the 9/11/01 attacks occurred.

[Colophon]

Clarke, who is expected to testify Tuesday before a federal panel reviewing the attacks, said Rumsfeld complained in the meeting that “there aren’t any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.”

:eek:
I just don’t know where to begin with that…

[CalMeacham]

The PNAC wanted to invade Iraq well before Sept. 11. They sent this letter to President Clinton in 1998. It’s from their own website:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
It’s hard for me to believe that they didn’t see the events of September 11 as a golden opportunity to justify this action, regardless of who was really responsible.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century

[Keeve]

@The_Bith_Shuffle

September 12th, 2001 - Iraq - True?

A friend of mine just said that a few important Republicans, including McCain, said that the US would probably have to invade Iraq as well as Afghanistan on September 12th, 2001.

Is this true?

Is there a double typo here? How they hell can they possibly make any sort of plans for September 12th, 2001? Do they have a time machine?

Or did the OP mean 2010?

[bup]

John McCain on Hardball, September 12, 2001:

@Hardball transcript

[On Sept. 12, 2001, he appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews, where Matthews asked whether the appropriate response should be “a legal matter or a military matter.”

“I think it’s both,” McCain replied. “As — as we stated, the — a nation has the right to defend itself, No. 1. But No. 2, these organizations could not flourish effectively unless they had the help and assistance and safe harbor of these nations. And it isn’t just Afghanistan — we’re talking about Syria, Iraq, Iran, perhaps North Korea, Libya and others.”](PolitiFact | McCain's record on Iraq: eager to attack)

Is that a call to attack Iraq on September 12? Not directly.

Also from the link:

"In January 2002, while touring the flight bridge of an aircraft carrier on the Arabian Sea, McCain shouted: “Next up: Baghdad!” "

[davekhps]

To all those who allege conspiracy, recall that it was the declared public policy of the United States to support regime change in Iraq, as signed into law by then-President Clinton.

Iraq Liberation Act.

Thoughts on enforcing that policy ranged from PNAC-level enthusiasm for invasion, to moderate-to-liberal Democrats (and the few Ron Paul Republicans) paying it lip service but nothing more.

But there wasn’t anything secret or backroom about this. All the debates were public ever since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991. The people who didn’t know where these public figures stood after 9/11 were the people who frankly weren’t paying attention before 9/11.