Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jamestnz 1713 days ago
> Citation needed that this was a knowing conspiracy as opposed to bad intelligence

Within hours of the planes hitting the towers on 9/11, before any information was in, Rumsfeld's aides were drawing up plans for striking Iraq, despite zero evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks. The number one priority for the White House, above finding out who the real culprits were, was to figure out how to use it as a rationale to invade Iraq. This is not really a controversial viewpoint, it is documented fact [1].

When the 9/11 rationale for invading Iraq became untenable, it was replaced by the idea that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction, that he'd definitely been procuring uranium from Niger. Except these were lies too (and the WH knew it, because they'd sent Joe Wilson to investigate and he'd reported back as such). When Wilson heard them saying it despite knowing it was false, he contradicted them in public [2]. In an act of retribution, the WH leaked his wife's position as a CIA agent, burning valuable contacts and networks, and endangering friendly lives.

Then they moved onto the argument that regardless of WMDs, the Iraqi people actually wanted the invasion anyway, US forces would be welcomed as liberators by gift-bearing citizens, etc. When that didn't pan out either, a final argument became that Saddam was a tyrant and that fact alone provided sufficient moral and legal justification for preemptive war (i.e. The Bush Doctrine) [3].

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/plans-for-iraq-attack-began-on-...

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49856792

[3] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/why/

1 comments

There is no evidence that the media was part of the conspiracy, they just parroted the talking points and a few media outlets did heavily question the rationale.. the fact is both wars were hugely popular when they started so few listened.

This is not even close to a comparable situation to the social medial platforms, these platforms and democratized and weaponized mis-information. But it not just them, the ad-funded internet creates perverse incentives for views not truth, FB et al don’t care about truth they care about engagement, they know emotional touch points particularly angry drive engagement so their feeds optimize for that.

Our fractured society is just an emergent behavior from several complex systems with poor incentives, as such we need to find out a way to realign the incentives

> the fact is both wars were hugely popular when they started

That was the case in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq. There were significant protests against the planned invasion.

there were protests, and quite large ones but they were almost exclusively from the left and were generally categorized as just being people that didn't like Bush.

Gallup polling shows 50-60% of Americans supported going in just to remove Hussein, in the first half of 2003 only 23-27% of Americans thought it was a mistake to go in to Iraq. see here for tons of polls done https://news.gallup.com/poll/1633/iraq.aspx

Despite seemingly everyone's revisionist histories, the country was scared and generally whipped into a frenzy, the right wanted it, the centrists wanted it, some of the left wanted it.

...the country was scared and generally whipped into a frenzy...

Yes that's what is discussed above: who did the whipping, and how they did it.