Sterling Ambivalence (sterlingnorth) wrote,
Sterling Ambivalence
sterlingnorth

Breaking from CBS...We assumed it was Saddam on 9-11.

Word from CBS News is that Iraq was targeted immediately for massive retaliatory attacks by us after the September 11th attacks, since belief was that he just had something to do with it. Rumsfeld just knew that Hussein had something to do with it, even without any sort of intelligence to back this up. Twelve months later, there still isn't much evidence to the conceit that Hussein had any connections to the terrorist attacks. Of course when evidence linking the attack to bin Laden came up, Rumsfeld said that there was "no good basis for hanging hat." Read as, not enough evidence to plan massive retaliatory strikes against Osama.

You have to wonder why there is a lower standard of evidence for going after Saddam, rather than Osama. But there is a point in that during the fog of war everyone makes bad decisions since this was life and death and there is little time to think things out.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments