What if 9/11 never happened?

[Roma_Victrix]

This is a restored thread since the disastrous rollback of the forum to the 25th of December. Luckily, Google cache saved it up till Jan 6, but there were many more replies in the days after that. Unfortunately, I think they are all lost, but I'll preserve the initial comments here:

Think about it. I know it's a bit recent to start historical reflection, but some colossal things have occurred in these past 15 years since then. Imagine if 9/11 was completely thwarted or was never conceived of in the first place, with al-Qaeda relegated to working outside the US in hitting US targets like the USS Cole. Would George W. Bush have had his casus belli for war against either Afghanistan or Iraq? How powerful or influential would Iran be today if Saddam Hussein (or one of his sons succeeding him upon his death) was still in power over all of Iraq? Would the Arab Spring have even occurred? Would Syria, Libya, and Yemen be engulfed in civil wars at the moment? There's a lot of variables to consider, and yet 9/11 wasn't even a full two decades ago.

According to the 2004 Iraq Survey Group report (led by Charles Duelfer) the CIA had found that Iraq had intended "to return to WMD production after sanctions were lifted," and that Saddam Hussein had effectively preserved key WMD materials and delivery assets needed to construct new WMD weapon arsenals in the future [1]. Among the delivery systems Iraq had kept in violation of UN 687 were Ababil-100 and Al-Samoud ballistic missiles, and among the systems he was trying to acquire were long range ballistic missiles from North Korea [2]. In addition to that, there is discernible evidence from captured Iraqi documents that suggests that Saddam Hussein was able to siphon off an estimated $13 billion through illegal oil smuggling. According to the Duelfer Report again, France, Russia, and China had all received oil kickbacks through the UN Oil-for-Food program and were complicit in helping Iraq undermine UN weapon sanctions [1].

So no, I'm not buying any proposals that the Iraq War was a mistake or that the world is somehow better off with Saddam Hussein still in power. Without 9/11, regime change might not have happened -i'll give you that- but you still have a very explosive and delicate WMD proliferation problem in the Middle East and a tyrannical, homicidal dictator who was determined to undermine the international community by escaping his post-war agreements and intending to develop weapons of mass destruction. Either way, 9/11 or no, US military action was inevitable.

Plus there was this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan - (the most dangerous terrorist of the 20th century) who effectively sold WMD materials and nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya, Syria, and North Korea...

Leading to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard


(1)https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/...y_Findings.pdf
(2)http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/01/wo...pagewanted=all

I'm not sure you would have a full blown invasion of Iraq, a lot of what allowed it to take place was the bubble of post 9/11 rise in fear and patriotism, something that was well and truly spent by the time Iran and N Korea started being nuisances again.

I think the Arab Spring would still occur, but likely a lot less of a Radical Religious element.

What would happen in America is difficult to tell, 9/11 pretty much ended the flow of the last 10 years and set it on its current path.

IIRC Bush took his focus off terrorists and put them on finding excuses to invade Iraq. It wasn't so much an open secret that he was planning and invasion as a plain fact: he was openly mocked in the press for it (I recall the Onion and democratic mouthpieces doing so).

Dick Cheney above gives reasonable evidence Saddam Hussein would have given Bush his excuse eventually but without 9/11 or some kind of war I think Bush was a one termer: most likely Cheney would cook up some nonsense and go hard at the UN to legitimise the invasion. Its possible he'd be impeached before it kicked off.

"[Dick Cheney]...
So no, I'm not buying any proposals that the Iraq War was a mistake or that the world is somehow better off with Saddam Hussein still in power. Without 9/11, regime change might not have happened -i'll give you that- but you still have a very explosive and delicate WMD proliferation problem in the Middle East and a tyrannical, homicidal dictator who was determined to undermine the international community by escaping his post-war agreements and intending to develop weapons of mass destruction. Either way, 9/11 or no, US military action was inevitable."

Yep that's pretty much nailed it. I'd add that with Saddam Hussein it still couldn't be worse. Previously Iraq's narrowly based dictatorship turned a lot of its energy inwards supressing its own people with a savage cruelty. As with Syria regime change the savage cruelty is spilling over borders. Something can something worms something, my hindsight is 20/20.

Without 9/11? Iran would still be stoking nukes, and Israel would be sweating bullets and dropping bombs about that. Regimes across the Islamic world would be subject to the coups and giving two-faced support for terrorism that they have been for the last 50 years. 9/11 didn't destabilise Yemen or Libya or Egypt or Syria, although it probably put public sentiment on the side of sticking our fingers into the fire.

IIRC the '83 bombing in Lebanon had confirmed the US public's suspicion about sending troops anywhere. Clinton was under extreme pressure about sending troops anywhere, whether Rwanda or Bosnia no matter the justice of the cause, and 'Black Hawk down" demonstrated how unpopular a handful of deaths could be. While Bush snr could form an alliance with a clear mission (that first invasion of Iraq was a beautifully executed bit of work at a diplomatic as much as a military level) fuzzy missions like "invade and don't ;leave until they greet you as liberators" would not have been tolerated.

I'm not a "NEWAIJ" nut, but I have to acknowledge how much of a godsend the hit on the WQTC was for an aimless and ill intentioned administration with pretty much nothing on the agenda aside from hitting Iraq for six. Cheney rode the blind rage that was generated all the way into Baghdad.

I'm thinking no 9/11 means in 2006 Al Gore is faced with a resurgent Saddam looking around for trouble, probably killing Kurds for fun, and has to construct a humanitarian campaign backed by military intervention without stepping on the toes of Iran, Turkey, Syria, Israel, Russia or Congress (and then halfway in the GFC hits). He'd go about as well as Bush II I'm guessing.

[conon394]

Never noticed this one. Given the recent anniversary I thought a bump might be useful.

First how is there no 9/11. Ramzi Yousef did not seem to roil the world all that even given the scale of some of plots and potential for the one's he did pull off. So if AQ simply whiffed somehow. The hijackers made to many mistakes or people were more alert and only one plane was even taken over and say that was downed early by passenger crew activity... Would the scale of the potential of what AQ planned impact the US any more then the scale of Yousef planned. Let's call that case 1. Case 2. the Sytems works even better, AQ is less lucky and whole largely fizzles before even leaving the ground and US intel never really see's a bigger picture.

In either case I can't really see Chaney really getting green light for Iraq. But case 2 would make in profoundly difficult.

TWCs Dick Cheney cited the Duffer report and basically all its a big list of so what. Saddam wanted to reconstitute military post sanctions so to deter his enemies. Really what rational person in his neighborhood would not???? Yep Saddam was gifting off sanctions relief big deal that was obvious at the time. What threat did raise? I think the rapidly of of his military collapse upon invasion pretty proves there no secret military resection happening.

None of the Admin's somewhat farcical claims would hold much water in isolation w/o 9/11

So Bush just cruises. Retroactively trying to show how the budget would be w/o Bush Tax cuts, the Wars and Military spending increases is imprecise. But it seems clear the Bush tax cut will have by itself killed the year over years surplus. But before the 2004 election the growth would seen a real and and a projected downward trend (ceteris paribus). That would have made interesting politics. With deficits on a downward trend the Republicans would not have much of a leg to argue for some massive attack on Social security or Medicare/Medicare etc. One assumes the arguments would be rather banal Republicans for a bit more tax cutting, Dems for tinkering with social programs, a big infrastructure program might appeal to both sides...

The 2004 election would be interesting in a lot many different ways. The Dems could try to run on where is our surplus. Without 9/11 a sense that Bush was not a legitimate president might be still in the air and might rally democratic (oarty) voters. I think a fair amount of that was lost with 9/11. Also with no 9/11 and wars maybe the Dems opt for a different candidate than wooden Kerry who looked good at the time primary wise based on a war record for war time.

But in any case 2004 would likely be a caretaker argument. Assume Bush wins I suppose or a democratic alternative I think without an endless war events or the economic crash circa 2008 I don't see much change in the US house and senate that is they stay at or near the tipping point, with too many centrist in both parties to see really dramatic legislation.

2008 becomes the interesting point if no particular new tax cuts or spending made the grade for a second Bush term (or generic Dem president) then by 2007 the US would be close likely to almost no deficit. Assume the Euro crisis, and Japan still racking up debt, the dollar and US debt would look all that much better a deal. One wonders if the derivative alchemy might have lasted another while but if not I suspect a very different US reaction in circa 2008. With projections likely showing a return to surplus, no endless war or occupation I imagine both parties would have jumped on board fiscal action with both feet and enough candy for all to vote for it, less rancor and more of a sense of market stability.

Altogether from a purely self interested US prospective its hard not see the US better off no matter if Osama stayed in his compounds and tried again (and again) because his chances of getting so luck and getting a strait flush again were and always were vanishingly small. And sans that I think the US would stayed on post war cruise control but for maybe the rise of China with things looking better for the US...

[Common Soldier]

Never noticed this one. Given the recent anniversary I thought a bump might be useful.

First how is there no 9/11. Ramzi Yousef did not seem to roil the world all that even given the scale of some of plots and potential for the one's he did pull off. So if AQ simply whiffed somehow. The hijackers made to many mistakes or people were more alert and only one plane was even taken over and say that was downed early by passenger crew activity... Would the scale of the potential of what AQ planned impact the US any more then the scale of Yousef planned. Let's call that case 1. Case 2. the Sytems works even better, AQ is less lucky and whole largely fizzles before even leaving the ground and US intel never really see's a bigger picture.

In either case I can't really see Chaney really getting green light for Iraq. But case 2 would make in profoundly difficult.

TWCs Dick Cheney cited the Duffer report and basically all its a big list of so what. Saddam wanted to reconstitute military post sanctions so to deter his enemies. Really what rational person in his neighborhood would not???? Yep Saddam was gifting off sanctions relief big deal that was obvious at the time. What threat did raise? I think the rapidly of of his military collapse upon invasion pretty proves there no secret military resection happening.

None of the Admin's somewhat farcical claims would hold much water in isolation w/o 9/11

So Bush just cruises. Retroactively trying to show how the budget would be w/o Bush Tax cuts, the Wars and Military spending increases is imprecise. But it seems clear the Bush tax cut will have by itself killed the year over years surplus. But before the 2004 election the growth would seen a real and and a projected downward trend (ceteris paribus). That would have made interesting politics. With deficits on a downward trend the Republicans would not have much of a leg to argue for some massive attack on Social security or Medicare/Medicare etc. One assumes the arguments would be rather banal Republicans for a bit more tax cutting, Dems for tinkering with social programs, a big infrastructure program might appeal to both sides...

The 2004 election would be interesting in a lot many different ways. The Dems could try to run on where is our surplus. Without 9/11 a sense that Bush was not a legitimate president might be still in the air and might rally democratic (oarty) voters. I think a fair amount of that was lost with 9/11. Also with no 9/11 and wars maybe the Dems opt for a different candidate than wooden Kerry who looked good at the time primary wise based on a war record for war time.

But in any case 2004 would likely be a caretaker argument. Assume Bush wins I suppose or a democratic alternative I think without an endless war events or the economic crash circa 2008 I don't see much change in the US house and senate that is they stay at or near the tipping point, with too many centrist in both parties to see really dramatic legislation.

2008 becomes the interesting point if no particular new tax cuts or spending made the grade for a second Bush term (or generic Dem president) then by 2007 the US would be close likely to almost no deficit. Assume the Euro crisis, and Japan still racking up debt, the dollar and US debt would look all that much better a deal. One wonders if the derivative alchemy might have lasted another while but if not I suspect a very different US reaction in circa 2008. With projections likely showing a return to surplus, no endless war or occupation I imagine both parties would have jumped on board fiscal action with both feet and enough candy for all to vote for it, less rancor and more of a sense of market stability.

Altogether from a purely self interested US prospective its hard not see the US better off no matter if Osama stayed in his compounds and tried again (and again) because his chances of getting so luck and getting a strait flush again were and always were vanishingly small. And sans that I think the US would stayed on post war cruise control but for maybe the rise of China with things looking better for the US...

I agree with a lot of what you say, but a few points:

1. Experience based on the last hundred years indicate that most Presidents manage to get re-elected if they run again. Only in a few exceptions will a President not get rs-elected, and that is because the economy did poorly. Busy would have gotten re-electdd withour the Iraq invasion or Afghsnistan, the economy would have been better without all the spending on the War on Terror.

2. Economy would have been better, and the budget would have been balanced, od at least, a much smaller deficit.

3. Housing market wouldn't have included.

4. Most Americans would not have given much less thoughts about Muslims, and most American would be indifferent to Muslims, not much for or against.

5. US military would finally have gotten downsized. China wasn't quite yet the concern if is today, and the Soviets were no longer a threat.

6. Without all rhemoney spent on the war. The US could have gotten serious about a manner mission to Mars.

7. Also, I definitely think the US would have had a new shuttle program. Although Venturestsr had already been cancelled, there was sri a need to replace rhe existing shuttle, and perhaps an updated and improved version of the existing shuttle perhaps. Without the War on Terror and it's distraction, there would have been the money for a new shuttle or some kind of manned US space craft.

8. A Democrat would have been elected after Bush, but it might not have been Obama. Obama's early opposition to the Iraq War helped him as a candidate, and without it, I am sure how well he would have done. Although Obama does make good speeches ,

[conon394]

Well how abut a variant if we are going to do AQ alt history.

According to Ken Gormley's Death of American Virtue. AQ almost got very lucky in 1996 and was on the verge of assassinating Bill Clinton.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...l-Clinton.html

So corollary what if AQ got incredibly lucky 5 years earlier. Assuming the story is credible OBL would take credit just as in 9/11. Gore would almost assuredly got some kind of use of force resolution eventually but obviously could pretty much invade A-stan and simply send a war powers notification to Congress. So same basic start. None of that dems are soft, Any US President would do exactly what GBjr did at least toward Afghanistan. Most interestingly since the game plan was initially to back a North Alliance offensive Ahmad Shah Massoud would still be alive to lead it. I am not sure what that would mean. He was defiantly hard anti Pakistan and he was the guy to bound the northern alliance into something more than just the warlords who the Taliban had not killed yet. Could the US simply have backed him as dictator of A-stan in reality wth some widow dressing of democracy. With him as proxy we would likely have to use the Uzbeck route as the main supply to the war, I imagine Pakistan would have been more frosty from the start.

But US economy humming, no surplus yet but looking good.

Clinton scandals essentially cease to be an issue. Can't really see if Ross Perot can become a thing if we are at war in Afghanistan. War time Gore likely wins the 1996 election but as to congress no ideals. Would he lead the dems to seconfd LBJ victory. Or were politics sufficiently different that he not same rally effect out of the nation.

Would the attack hurt the still growing dot bubble? Would the fed let it go farther for fear of hurting the economy during a war? A dead president let the nation be all somber. And in this case really pissed of at a foreign foe. So no the markets are fine. That it was an attack 'over there' does not scare the US some much. Thinks like Cheney's 1% and the legal twisting to use enhanced interrogation do carry the same weight and likely don't get so much traction as a US entprise, but one suspect that will not some people being disappeared to friendly nations who can do it in secret on some occasions.

Would Gore risk a war surtax? It would be nice to think he would but nobody since LBJ has had that kind of toughness so no.

With a completely different set of advisors, certainly there would still be no Iraq war.

Would budget shutdowns be put aside - possibly, but since war fighting is off budget mostly one suppose we could do both. But It would look politically risky.

[Common Soldier]

Well how abut a variant if we are going to do AQ alt history.

According to Ken Gormley's Death of American Virtue. AQ almost got very lucky in 1996 and was on the verge of assassinating Bill Clinton.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...l-Clinton.html

So corollary what if AQ got incredibly lucky 5 years earlier. Assuming the story is credible OBL would take credit just as in 9/11. Gore would almost assuredly got some kind of use of force resolution eventually but obviously could pretty much invade A-stan and simply send a war powers notification to Congress. So same basic start. None of that dems are soft, Any US President would do exactly what GBjr did at least toward Afghanistan. Most interestingly since the game plan was initially to back a North Alliance offensive Ahmad Shah Massoud would still be alive to lead it. I am not sure what that would mean. He was defiantly hard anti Pakistan and he was the guy to bound the northern alliance into something more than just the warlords who the Taliban had not killed yet. Could the US simply have backed him as dictator of A-stan in reality wth some widow dressing of democracy. With him as proxy we would likely have to use the Uzbeck route as the main supply to the war, I imagine Pakistan would have been more frosty from the start.

But US economy humming, no surplus yet but looking good.

Clinton scandals essentially cease to be an issue. Can't really see if Ross Perot can become a thing if we are at war in Afghanistan. War time Gore likely wins the 1996 election but as to congress no ideals. Would he lead the dems to seconfd LBJ victory. Or were politics sufficiently different that he not same rally effect out of the nation.

Would the attack hurt the still growing dot bubble? Would the fed let it go farther for fear of hurting the economy during a war? A dead president let the nation be all somber. And in this case really pissed of at a foreign foe. So no the markets are fine. That it was an attack 'over there' does not scare the US some much. Thinks like Cheney's 1% and the legal twisting to use enhanced interrogation do carry the same weight and likely don't get so much traction as a US entprise, but one suspect that will not some people being disappeared to friendly nations who can do it in secret on some occasions.

Would Gore risk a war surtax? It would be nice to think he would but nobody since LBJ has had that kind of toughness so no.

With a completely different set of advisors, certainly there would still be no Iraq war.

Would budget shutdowns be put aside - possibly, but since war fighting is off budget mostly one suppose we could do both. But It would look politically risky.

I think what you propose is likely. With no War, perhaps the next generation space shutrle, Venture Star would not be cancelled. We wouldn't be depended on the Russians foe going to space. VentureStar could deliver on what the shuttle promised, a cheap way to get to space. With a capacity greater than the shuttle, we could establish a moon base as a prelude to going to Mars, to.take advantage of its capacity.

I don't think we would back a warlord to be the defacto ruler of Afghanistan, it would be the right thing to do, but foes against our nominal morality. Dot com, housing crash never happen, and GM, Chrysler don't go bankrupt. With Gore re-elefted, US becomes a leader in fighting Global Warming. be as many Americans find the renewable.policy not as bad as they thought, a lot of objections to Climate Change evaporats, opposition becomes a non event.(Or.maybe that is just wishful thinking.)

Without the distraction of.rhe middle East, US concentrates more on China to hold them in check. Less polarization of American politics, Gore is too boring to criticize as much.

[conon394]

Gore is too boring to criticize as much.

I was kinda thinking that.

Also of note John Shalikashvili would still have been chairmen of the joint chiefs. Given his recommendation that the US would need 500,000 thousand troops to effectively occupy Iraq . If course not divided ours or their attentions across two wars. So maybe no Warlord option, but it would have been the easy button. If he simply agreed to stay moderate and oppose the Taliban with Yeltsin still in power we could have arranged a fairly solid stream of the Russian equipment he was familiar with. Downside need to turn a blind eye to opium.

[Cyclops]

Fascinating stuff.

... With Gore re-elefted, US becomes a leader in fighting Global Warming. be as many Americans find the renewable.policy not as bad as they thought, a lot of objections to Climate Change evaporats, opposition becomes a non event.(Or.maybe that is just wishful thinking.)

That's tantalising. The climate change stuff has been sad, albeit not world breaking yet. Its interesting to imagine policies just dialed a few points the other way. Would the increase in extreme weather events be cited to "disprove" anthropocentric climate change? I can't see the Koch's just giving up on their billions.

Without the distraction of.rhe middle East, US concentrates more on China to hold them in check. Less polarization of American politics, Gore is too boring to criticize as much.

US politics was polarised in the 1980's (and forever really) with seriously unfair propaganda directed at Carter and Bush Snr. Long term the alliance of oil and religious right that put in Reagan, Bush, Bush II and now Trump would have pressed hard for intervention in the Near and Middle East. Three serious wars in twenty years IRL suggests whatever the timeline at least one was on the cards: Bin laden was the legitimate justification for only one of those.

I'm less aware of the corporate backers behind the Democrat presidents, I assume tech as they did well under Clinton and I believe Gore had large agricultural support.

So Clinton dead makes Gore President and like LBJ and Truman he wins his first and loses (or doesn't contest) his second tilt. I assume he was a legitimate candidate and not a Johnson/Arthur spud. Not sure it bucks our timeline too much, maybe a touch more regulation and Clinton gets canonised like Golden Bollocks JFK. "Oh he was a genius, soooo talented and his whole family was geniuses". Wait. Maybe Hilary gets elected on the back of that. So its a disaster for the Arab World no matter what.

[conon394]

LBJ and Truman he wins his first and loses (or doesn't contest) his second til

I need some reason for that. An afghan without loss of focus is far less likely to play out the way the real situation did. Again Shalikashvili was pretty emphatic is testimony before the Iraq war the US needed a lot more troops that the Bush Admin was talking about and wanted occupation strength at the level of military to occupied civilians to be similar to post war Germany. If the US goes stronger and faster it might even catch Bin Laden (re not enough men at Tora Bora). Also with no fracturing of the Alliance that backed the US in A-stan due to Iraq the US stands to a lot more help. Sill think that one way or the other Massoud would have to end up in charge he too much eclat and street (cave?) cred. He might well have been able to keep the lid this sufficiently long for the US declare victory and just back him from afar. With him in charge maybe a moderate Islamic north, let the south be the 13th century south and maybe some kind of westernized capital in Kabul.

[Gromovnik]

If 911 never happened, there would be some other false flag operation.

[conon394]

If 911 never happened, there would be some other false flag operation.

Really don't go down that route.

No false flag just a very lucky op by a terrorist group that had been trying to swing for the fence for a while and correctly figured out the typical response to a hijacking would be in their favor if they could scare up enough potential people willing to die for the cause. That Cheney and his fellows were able to parley that into a reckless war of choice does not mean thay were behind the event.

[Cyclops]

If 911 never happened, there would be some other false flag operation.

oh you think 9/11 actually happened? How naive. There's no actual proof there ever was a WTC to be destroyed (ever wonder why it was in the 1976 King Kong movie? A work of fiction?) and you expect me to believe jet fuel can lift a steel planes (yeah a 179 tonne Boeing 767 200ER can actually fly without CGI), its basic science sheeple.

/sarcasm.

[conon394]

AH just got the axe or what? Well I guess I post more on Alcibiades thread that I was going to. IS AH OK in the min form now?

[Ukiah]

If 9/11 never happened, America wouldn't be as politically divided as much as it is today.

[Common Soldier]

If 9/11 never happened, America wouldn't be as politically divided as much as it is today.

Unlikely. America was politically divided long before 9/11. Just take a look at the Clinton Impeachment trial.

[Ukiah]

Unlikely. America was politically divided long before 9/11. Just take a look at the Clinton Impeachment trial.

Regardless of their political affiliation, everyone I know agreed that what Clinton did was bad. People who supported Clinton didn't get upset when someone criticized him over that. I never witnessed people argue and become enemies over politics before 9/11. I know that it happened somewhere, but not as much as it happens today. I was against the invasion on Iraq back when a lot of people believed the WMD claim. They also believed that this would be an easy war. I was accused of being unpatriotic. Those who didn't realize that I'm a US citizen thought that I was anti-American and supported the terrorists. It happened again with Trump. I warned people about Trump. That triggered the Trump supporters. Now, people make assumptions about the Democrats and the Republicans. Trump supporters have accused me of supporting the war on Iraq. I'm someone who joined the protest against the war. Some of the really confused Trump supporters accused me of being a yuppie who supported Hillary because she would keep me rich. Honestly, that was when I realized how conned the Trump supporters were being. I've been hearing about Trump since the 1980s, so I have a very different impression of him when compared to those who knew little of him before he began to run for the candidacy. Many people assume things about the Republicans, too. It's strange. If someone says that he or she is against socialism, then that person can get accused of being homophobic, extreme right wing, doesn't believe in climate change/global warming, etc. And this is the sort of thing that some people use to accuse someone he or she hates. Regardless of which party the people support, there are different degrees of socialism or unregulated economy that they'd go for. It's what politics did to this country. It wasn't like this before. I mentioned socialism, but in reality, I'm taking about the people who support communism. I started to see an increase in communist supporters amongst the younger generation. I witnessed the Cold War end in Europe. I know people from Russia who remembered life under communism. My grandparents escaped communism in another country. I have a very different opinion on communism when compared to those who support it. In the past, I never met anyone who supported communism. And everyone I met agreed that communism was a failure. Prior to 9/11, I never had any trouble with political conversations.

[Roma_Victrix]

oh you think 9/11 actually happened? How naive. There's no actual proof there ever was a WTC to be destroyed (ever wonder why it was in the 1976 King Kong movie? A work of fiction?) and you expect me to believe jet fuel can lift a steel planes (yeah a 179 tonne Boeing 767 200ER can actually fly without CGI), its basic science sheeple.

/sarcasm.

How cute and naive of you to think that my account, this thread, or TWC even exists as a forum that you're reading right now. Wake up sheeple! You've been misled by the Illuminati who created TWC as a giant false flag to spread the idea that 9/11 happened or that New York exists!

[Ludicus]

Would George W. Bush have had his casus belli for war against either Afghanistan or Iraq?

Well, even before 9/11, Rumsfeld argued that ousting Saddam would,"enhance US US credibility and influence throughout the region" (Link - read the letter to Condoleezza Rice, on July.) and "demonstrate what US policy is all about".
The 9/11 was a catalyzer.

[conon394]

Well, even before 9/11, Rumsfeld argued that ousting Saddam would,"enhance US US credibility and influence throughout the region" (Link - read the letter to Condoleezza Rice, on July.) and "demonstrate what US policy is all about".
The 9/11 was a catalyzer.

A bit choosy there in you quoting while not acknowledging the memo is rather an ideal spinning session and allows for a whole range ideals and does not in fact prioritize a full on invasion as option 1A while reducing everything to option 34F.

Sans 9/11 I don't really see the basis for even Cheney to gain the support for an actual invasion and occupation or even propose it credibly.

[Ludicus]

the memo .. does not in fact prioritize a full on invasion as option

I'm speculating, of course, but it seems fair to say that the 9/11 acted as a catalyzer.
In his concluding remarks Rumsfeld clearly states that "It is possible that Saddam's options will increase with time, while ours could decrease. A major success with Iraq would enhance US credibility and influence throughout the region"

[conon394]

I'm speculating, of course, but it seems fair to say that the 9/11 acted as a catalyzer.
In his concluding remarks Rumsfeld clearly states that "It is possible that Saddam's options will increase with time, while ours could decrease. A major success with Iraq would enhance US credibility and influence throughout the region"

I would say rather enabler. Its seems to me Cheney and Rumsfeild certainly saw a new opportunity to redirect American policy. Possibly Rice as well. The caution of the First Gulf war that seemed to flow from Bush senior and Baker was absent and frankly GBjr was simply not likely up to the task of really seeing the negatives. If you want the 'catalyzer' it was just GBjr combined with a strong Cheney, really. I don't think a Gore president or Bush Senior would have gone on such a war of choice over just hunting and AQ and of necessity attacking the Taliban.