Let’s share 9/11 stories here

[Marvin the Martian]

Was it the Red Cross in Bloomington by chance? I was a sophomore at IU that year and shared a house with four other guys a couple blocks south of campus. I woke up to one of my roommates yelling. He is a pretty excitable and loud person, so in that moment I assumed it was nothing out of the ordinary. When I went down the hall to his room he told me about the first plane hitting the WTC. We went downstairs and all five us were glued to the TV for the rest of the morning.

In the early afternoon, we were all overtaken with this feeling of needing to do something to help, whatever it may be. We ended up going to the Red Cross around 3:00 or so and waited in line for more than an hour to donate. Our TV was tuned to CNN for days after.

Aside from the shock and onset of anger, one of my most vivid memories of the day, of all things, was an email one of my professors sent. He was the only one of my professors not to cancel class that day, and sent an email saying that we would meet as usual at 4:00. I skipped, and found out on Thursday that almost everyone in the class did too. Why that memory stands out among the rest, I don't know.

Yes it was the Bloomington Red Cross. I was amazed at the number of people there, and the number of young people there. Do you recall a day or two later, a plane was spotted flying over Bloomington. It was during the no-fly time. The pilot claimed to have no idea there was a no-fly order. I just tried a quick Google, couldn't find anything about it but I recall a story in the H-T.

 

[Cottage Grove]

Yes it was the Bloomington Red Cross. I was amazed at the number of people there, and the number of young people there. Do you recall a day or two later, a plane was spotted flying over Bloomington. It was during the no-fly time. The pilot claimed to have no idea there was a no-fly order. I just tried a quick Google, couldn't find anything about it but I recall a story in the H-T.

I have a vague memory of that, but don't remember the details. My long term memory stinks though when it comes to specific details of larger events; 911 being an obvious exception.

 

[Rockfish1]

Good grief. That's amazingly shallow. We pretty much know what Japanese doctrine was and why. What exactly is the 9 11 doctrine and why was it doctrine?

The main distinction between al Qaeda and other jihadist groups is that al Qaeda decided to focus on the "far enemy" (us) instead of the "near enemies" -- the existing Middle Eastern regimes that al Qaeda regards as corrupt heretics. Al Qaeda attacked us here at home to make us pay a price for our support for regimes like the Saudis and to provoke us into a damaging over-reaction.

To some extent we gave al Qaeda what it wanted, but that hasn't worked out well for al Qaeda, and according to stuff I've read, the "far enemy" strategy is now discredited among jihadi groups. They still don't like us, and they'd happily see us suffer, but they mostly aren't trying to come over here and attack us at home.

I think we vastly overstate the risk of terrorism. For all the horror of 9/11, our reactions to it have probably done us more harm than the attacks themselves did. (Compare the cost of the attacks to the self-inflicted cost of the Iraq War, for example.) If we thought more carefully about these things I'd hope we'd become less irrational about the threat.

And to that point, I'm not wild about the admonitions I frequently see to "remember 9/11." I'm hardly likely to forget terrorists murdering 3,000 people by flying airliners into tall buildings live on national television, so I don't need the reminder. But I wonder what I'm supposed to do or think after I "remember 9/11." If I'm supposed to "remember" that Mooslims are spooky, then I'll pass.

 

[CGW-89]

Was on a work assignment in the financial district of London. Can't recall the name of the building, but it was directly across the street from the Lloyd's of London. We had heard that a plane crashed into the WTC, we assumed, like many on here that it was a small Cessna, and was an accident. Nothing raised an alarm at that point. When the second plane hit, then we knew there was a problem.

Where we were working, we didn't have access to TV's, so information was all over the place. Attacks on Chicago, LA, etc. I remember sitting in a meeting and looking out the window and still seeing planes going to and from Heathrow (financial district was in the flight path). Eventually they evacuated the entire Financial District in case it was a coordinated attack across many continents and countries.

It was hard to watch not having the comfort of family. My daughters were 1st grade and pre-K at the time and they knew their Dad was safe, but had to fly home eventually. As all kids would be they were worried.

Many of my co-workers on the assignment were from our Boston and NYC offices. Several of them lost friends or family. Heartbreaking was and still is the feeling.

Two things that still stand out in my mind from that assignment: 1) Buckingham Palace - at the changing of the guard ceremony on that Friday, they played the Star-Spangled banner. Still get goose-bumps thinking about that memory; 2) was on one of the first international flights to O'Hare - at Heathrow we went through 3 metal detectors and were hand searched before getting on the plane. Took 3 1/2 hours to board. Not a single person complained.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The main distinction between al Qaeda and other jihadist groups is that al Qaeda decided to focus on the "far enemy" (us) instead of the "near enemies" -- the existing Middle Eastern regimes that al Qaeda regards as corrupt heretics. Al Qaeda attacked us here at home to make us pay a price for our support for regimes like the Saudis and to provoke us into a damaging over-reaction.

To some extent we gave al Qaeda what it wanted, but that hasn't worked out well for al Qaeda, and according to stuff I've read, the "far enemy" strategy is now discredited among jihadi groups. They still don't like us, and they'd happily see us suffer, but they mostly aren't trying to come over here and attack us at home.

I think we vastly overstate the risk of terrorism. For all the horror of 9/11, our reactions to it have probably done us more harm than the attacks themselves did. (Compare the cost of the attacks to the self-inflicted cost of the Iraq War, for example.) If we thought more carefully about these things I'd hope we'd become less irrational about the threat.

And to that point, I'm not wild about the admonitions I frequently see to "remember 9/11." I'm hardly likely to forget terrorists murdering 3,000 people by flying airliners into tall buildings live on national television, so I don't need the reminder. But I wonder what I'm supposed to do or think after I "remember 9/11." If I'm supposed to "remember" that Mooslims are spooky, then I'll pass.

Nice post. Thanks for that.

I too struggle about what I should remember about 9 11 as I am admonished to never forget. I guess the biggest impact is as I suggested, it represents am unprecedented event and I don't think I can ever really understand the objective. I certainly don't go to the "spooky Muslim" place, but I also think that a small handful of the spooky ones leave an impact far in excess of their number. I have also seen stuff about the near and far enemy. That partly explains the Muslim on Muslim violence that was part of the Iraq/Syria problem. But that doesn't explain the bombings and gun attacks in places like London, Moscow, and Paris.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Good grief. That's amazingly shallow. We pretty much know what Japanese doctrine was and why. What exactly is the 9 11 doctrine and why was it doctrine?

You’re moving the goalposts again but that’s no surprise. AQ attacked to inflict terror as a step to accomplish their overall mission. Japan attacked to wipe out our Pacific Fleet. You said you don’t know why AQ attacked. That’s silly

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Here's a good 9/11-related story. I hope this kid does well.

https://outline.com/dnaG5e

Photo: Claudio Papapietro for The Wall Street Journal

When Jake Campbell entered orientation at his dream school, the University of Michigan, this summer, he relayed a message to his college adviser: On Sept. 11, he would need to be in New York City for the 17th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.

“It’s important for me to be back,” he told the adviser.

At the annual memorial on Tuesday where the Twin Towers once stood, the ceremony followed its ritual of relatives taking turns reading the names of the 2,983 victims before a crowd of mourners and officials, including Mayor Bill de Blasio and Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

For the 17-year-old Mr. Campbell and others his age who had a parent killed that day, the memorial was slightly different this year. Some had to return from college to the event that honors relatives they can’t remember.

Mr. Campbell wasn’t even a year old when his mother, Jill Maurer-Campbell, an administrative assistant in the South Tower, called to tell the family that the North Tower had been struck. Mr. Campbell said she didn’t know whether there would be an evacuation.She said “that she’d call later and that she’s fine,” relatives told him.

But moments later, the South Tower—and the 78th floor where she worked—got hit. His mother died at the age of 31.

His maternal grandfather, Joe Maurer, a firefighter, and his father, Steven Campbell, a New York Police Department officer, spent the next days digging through rubble and exposing themselves to the toxic air that plagued much of lower Manhattan. “They were I guess living with the hope that she was out there somewhere,” Mr. Campbell said. “It was a powerful thing.”

They recovered her wallet but never found her body. Mr. Maurer died in September 2014 from cancer that his doctors said he got from recovery efforts at Ground Zero.

In 2017, just five months before Mr. Campbell found out he was accepted into his top college choice in Ann Arbor, Mich., his father had a fatal heart attack. It is unclear if his death was related to his work after the 9/11 attacks, he said.

Mr. Campbell said he always imagined his father and grandfather joining him on move-in day. “There were pieces missing when I moved in,” he said.

Jacob Campbell left a ‘Michigan Mom’ shirt at the memorial for his mother, Jill Maurer-Campbell, who died on 9/11. Mr. Campbell was an infant at the time and is now a student at the University of Michigan. Photo: Jacob Campbell

The teenager said his family was always active with the 9/11 Memorial & Museum as he was growing up. Other relatives of victims of the attacks took notice. “They clearly instilled that sense of civic duty and civic pride in Jake,” said Anthony Gardner, senior vice president of government and community affairs at the museum.

The children of victims “are perpetuating their loved ones’ memory,” said Mr. Gardner, whose brother was killed in the attacks. “They’re walking in their footsteps and they’re keeping them present and alive.”

This year’s ceremony, without his father and grandfather, felt different for Mr. Campbell. He went with his maternal grandmother and spent time at the reflecting pool that marks where the South Tower stood and where his mother’s name is engraved, feeling a new sense of loss.

After the memorial, he walked away to begin his journey back to school—but not before covering his mother’s name with a sweater that read, “Michigan Mom.”

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

Nice post. Thanks for that.

I too struggle about what I should remember about 9 11 as I am admonished to never forget. I guess the biggest impact is as I suggested, it represents am unprecedented event and I don't think I can ever really understand the objective. I certainly don't go to the "spooky Muslim" place, but I also think that a small handful of the spooky ones leave an impact far in excess of their number. I have also seen stuff about the near and far enemy. That partly explains the Muslim on Muslim violence that was part of the Iraq/Syria problem. But that doesn't explain the bombings and gun attacks in places like London, Moscow, and Paris.

I think if you accept his analysis you have to accept that the reason for the choice of near over far enemy’s is because of the response we had. Had we not gone after them, they would surly have won the near/far enemy debate and we would be fighting them here..... no sanctuary for the enemy anywhere is my motto

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You’re moving the goalposts again but that’s no surprise. AQ attacked to inflict terror as a step to accomplish their overall mission. Japan attacked to wipe out our Pacific Fleet. You said you don’t know why AQ attacked. That’s silly

I haven’t moved the goal posts. You simply don’t know where they are. I agree that AQ had some kind of overall mission. But I don’t have a clear understanding of what it was.

FWIW, Japan intended to cripple the Pacific Fleet. It’s mission was much deeper and broader.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

That's a lame analogy. After Pearl Harbor we rounded up Japanese-Americans and put them in concentration camps for five years.

And after 9/11 we attacked a nation that had absolutely nothing to do with it. I say that as one who supported Bush on Iraq until far too late.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

And after 9/11 we attacked a nation that had absolutely nothing to do with it. I say that as one who supported Bush on Iraq until far too late.

Ignorant

 

[Quix0te]

And after 9/11 we attacked a nation that had absolutely nothing to do with it. I say that as one who supported Bush on Iraq until far too late.

That is a different issue. After Pearl harbor we attacked a nation that had everything to do with it.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Ignorant

Yes, attacking Iraq was ignorant. I wish I came to that conclusion sooner.

It seems some of our conservative friends LOVE to hate. Have at it. Those people are all dead, I believe all the people that ordered the attack are dead or captured. We need to keep concerns on today's terrorists. But again, why keep giving those guys the free press they would want. Does this not come up often? I often hear after mass shootings that we should not give the shooter the press they seek as that encourages copycats.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Yes, attacking Iraq was ignorant. I wish I came to that conclusion sooner.

It seems some of our conservative friends LOVE to hate. Have at it. Those people are all dead, I believe all the people that ordered the attack are dead or captured. We need to keep concerns on today's terrorists. But again, why keep giving those guys the free press they would want. Does this not come up often? I often hear after mass shootings that we should not give the shooter the press they seek as that encourages copycats.

They just don’t care. One of the main thrusts of AQ’s (and their derivative groups) strategy is to promote anti-Islam sentiment amongst the West. Many, including our esteemed Colonel, fall right into their hands.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

They just don’t care. One of the main thrusts of AQ’s (and their derivative groups) strategy is to promote anti-Islam sentiment amongst the West. Many, including our esteemed Colonel, fall right into their hands.

Yep, they wanted a global war of the west vs Islam. A lot of us are determined to make sure it happens.

 

[UncleMark]

I was at work at a new car dealership parts department, when my young 20-something assistant said he'd heard a plane hit the WTC. We all thought it was a small plane and a bizarre accident. We went to look at the TV and saw the size of the damage and though it looked like something bigger than a Cessna had hit; the second plane hit soon thereafter. Reports from the Pentagon soon followed.

What I remember more than anything was how stunned and shocked this young man was when it became apparent this was a full blown attack. Later talking to my Dad, I said it was like this young man's Pearl Harbor or Kennedy assassination.

 

[Bill4411]

I remember a lot of things but what really stood out was listening to Bryant Gumbel saying about the planes hitting the buildings, “What makes you think it was intentional?” Geez Bryant....

 

[sglowrider]

Yes, attacking Iraq was ignorant. I wish I came to that conclusion sooner.

It seems some of our conservative friends LOVE to hate. Have at it. Those people are all dead, I believe all the people that ordered the attack are dead or captured. We need to keep concerns on today's terrorists. But again, why keep giving those guys the free press they would want. Does this not come up often? I often hear after mass shootings that we should not give the shooter the press they seek as that encourages copycats.

At least you came around at some point. My cousin's husband (from Ft Worth, TX) was still convinced in 2016, the last time I spoke to him that it was justifiable. WMD.

 

[UncleMark]

At least you came around at some point. My cousin's husband (from Ft Worth, TX) was still convinced in 2016, the last time I spoke to him that it was justifiable. WMD.

Yeah, and until Iraq, WMD meant nuclear. Then they added biological. When it became obvious Iraq had neither of those, they threw chemical in.

 

[sglowrider]

Yeah, and until Iraq, WMD meant nuclear. Then they added biological. When it became obvious Iraq had neither of those, they threw chemical in.

My other cousin is embarrassed that his sister married such an idiot. He tells me that he gets up at 2 or 3 am just to troll the brother-in-law on FB in Dallas! I suspect he may be bored in life too. He has 7 master's degrees literally. You imagine at convocation... before receiving the scroll: 'Have we met before?'

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

They just don’t care. One of the main thrusts of AQ’s (and their derivative groups) strategy is to promote anti-Islam sentiment amongst the West. Many, including our esteemed Colonel, fall right into their hands.

Putz... I know, the Colonel knows, and you know...... who you are

 

[sglowrider]

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

Yep, they wanted a global war of the west vs Islam. A lot of us are determined to make sure it happens.

Ah yes...... fight and we fall in their hands..... do nothing and they keep attacking..... quite a quandary you have created

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Ah yes...... fight and we fall in their hands..... do nothing and they keep attacking..... quite a quandary you have created

It is far from a quandary, one fights who they need to fight. I have used the ww1 German comparison often, the Germans never believed they needed diplomacy because they had the most powerful army. Look where that got them.

Guerrilla warfare is predicated on the more powerful side creating more enemies than they kill. The secret is not to try to kill them all and let God sort them out, we are not capable of killing every Muslim on the planet.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

It is far from a quandary, one fights who they need to fight. I have used the ww1 German comparison often, the Germans never believed they needed diplomacy because they had the most powerful army. Look where that got them.

Guerrilla warfare is predicated on the more powerful side creating more enemies than they kill. The secret is not to try to kill them all and let God sort them out, we are not capable of killing every Muslim on the planet.

Really? That’s what guerrilla warfare is predicated on? Hmmmmm....so many things wrong with your logic. Try it out then let me know how that works..... I’ll wait for the YouTube video

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Really? That’s what guerrilla warfare is predicated on? Hmmmmm....so many things wrong with your logic. Try it out then let me know how that works..... I’ll wait for the YouTube video

Feel free to read books on military history, I have many I can loan you.

Watch the Ken Burns series on Vietnam. Episode 2 an American officer pointed out every time we killed the wrong guy, several joined the VC in his place (and he said more often than not we killed the wrong guy). The Soviets tried to kill them all in Afghanistan, did not work too well.

Note that even Nazi Germany, with s brutal willingness to kill anyone, was unable to brutally repress insurgents in Russia or France. The problem they faced, the more Russians they killed caused more Russians to hate them. How else did the partisan ranks keep growing?

Most COIN I read about suggests getting population acceptance. It can be a carrot and stick approach. Here General Kelly discusses how we finally won in Anbar. You do not hear him talking about the Abrams, or drones, or great encirclements. Yes, the troops were important. But we got the tribes on our side. And as he points out, a lot of it is that we paid them to be on our side.

If there is a modern military leader who believes "bomb them back to the stone age" works, they are not writing about it.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Yeah, and until Iraq, WMD meant nuclear. Then they added biological. When it became obvious Iraq had neither of those, they threw chemical in.

That’s not true, Mark.

 

[Jeb MT Mater]

Guerrilla warfare is predicated on the more powerful side creating more enemies than they kill.

Precisely and primitive American think wants to solve the problem by killing whereas modern American think realizes that's a hopelessly ineffective and primitive solution. For example, retrograde thinkers mocked Obama for his civilizing Cairo speech.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

View embedded media

That’s not even right. I mean, no bagels? It’s New York. WTF?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Feel free to read books on military history, I have many I can loan you.

Watch the Ken Burns series on Vietnam. Episode 2 an American officer pointed out every time we killed the wrong guy, several joined the VC in his place (and he said more often than not we killed the wrong guy). The Soviets tried to kill them all in Afghanistan, did not work too well.

Note that even Nazi Germany, with s brutal willingness to kill anyone, was unable to brutally repress insurgents in Russia or France. The problem they faced, the more Russians they killed caused more Russians to hate them. How else did the partisan ranks keep growing?

Most COIN I read about suggests getting population acceptance. It can be a carrot and stick approach. Here General Kelly discusses how we finally won in Anbar. You do not hear him talking about the Abrams, or drones, or great encirclements. Yes, the troops were important. But we got the tribes on our side. And as he points out, a lot of it is that we paid them to be on our side.

If there is a modern military leader who believes "bomb them back to the stone age" works, they are not writing about it.

This is an excellent post. HR McMaster and Petraeus are considered the modern godfathers of COIN and it’s a national tragedy that neither of them could help lastingly improve the political atmosphere in this country.

I look forward to McMaster’s eventual silence breaking when he reveals what a train wreck is this administration.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I haven’t moved the goal posts. You simply don’t know where they are. I agree that AQ had some kind of overall mission. But I don’t have a clear understanding of what it was.

FWIW, Japan intended to cripple the Pacific Fleet. It’s mission was much deeper and broader.

You’re talkin in circles. I’m out.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Yeah, and until Iraq, WMD meant nuclear. Then they added biological. When it became obvious Iraq had neither of those, they threw chemical in.

This is objectively false, sir. WMD is synonymous with what used to be called NBC and now is CBRN (they added Radiological).

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You’re talkin in circles. I’m out.

Circling the surface is where you are. I don’t have the time or interest to square it up for you.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Circling the surface is where you are. I don’t have the time or interest to square it up for you.

Yes, Minister.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

This is an excellent post. HR McMaster and Petraeus are considered the modern godfathers of COIN and it’s a national tragedy that neither of them could help lastingly improve the political atmosphere in this country.

I look forward to McMaster’s eventual silence breaking when he reveals what a train wreck is this administration.

Do you think he will do a "tell-all"? I doubt it, but I could be wrong.

I am sure I've posted this before, there is a game designer who teaches this stuff at the CIA. He's made a lot of COIN games. His games are the 50,000 foot overview, but they perfectly illustrate the problems. Simply put, in his Vietnam game, the US and S. Vietnam have slightly different victory conditions. Thus we never can really work perfectly together. In that article, he discusses that problem in the game on Afghanistan. The "I" is the American player and the "vet" is Karzai:

Later, when I need the long-gone aid money, I fire back at the vet. “What are you doing over there, Karzai? Remember, this is our cash. Share.”

Ruhnke jumps in again, building bridges. “Tell Jason it’s not corruption. It’s just your traditional way of running things. You have to live here; he’ll eventually leave.” The Taliban leader across the table makes no attempt to stifle a giggle as he reaches for pretzels.
​

His game Labyrinth, on the Great War on Terror is phenomenal. It is sure to give one a headache. The problem for the American player is simple, alternating between hard power and soft power as needed. It is hard. I was in a group that had 4 simultaneous games going at one time. All 8 players were convinced they were losing (it also isn't easy to develop a winning strategy as the terrorists).

Contrary to what Hack thought, I don't have the answers to fighting terror. But I do have a good sense of what the people in the COIN business believe does not work. Pacifism does not work, massed B-52 strikes everywhere does not work. It appears the experts believe we need to hold out an olive branch to many, and the sword to a few. And if we stick the wrong people with the sword, others will be upset and join the cause against us. So we need to be careful who gets the sword. And I'm not sure why that is controversial.

Going back to WWII, we saw that in Ukraine. Germany was a liberator at first, but didn't try very hard to distinguish between the Ukranians that supported them and the ones that opposed them. If you were one that supported them and they killed your children, my guess is you move into the other column. Again, I don't see how that is controversial.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Really? That’s what guerrilla warfare is predicated on? Hmmmmm....so many things wrong with your logic. Try it out then let me know how that works..... I’ll wait for the YouTube video

You must’ve been a terrible combat leader and planner if you think what he said is wrong.

 

[MrBing]

and keep away from politics in this thread, if possible.
My school starts fairly late. I was in the hallway welcoming children. One of my kids came in all excited saying a plane ran into a building. I didn’t think too much about it, but ducked into teachers’ lounge to see the news on and teachers filled me in. It was terrible going to the classroom and trying to teach as I kept checking my computer for news. Several of the children’s parents came to pick them up, so many that the others were asking questions. We’d been advised not to say anything. Longest day I ever taught. I barely slept that night, sitting on the couch and watching the news all day. Sent a note home with parents telling them we’d be watching the rememberance on Friday in the room, and their children could opt in or out. More than half gave up recess and ate lunch in the room to watch. It’s a big responsibility to be with a group of children during a time in which every single one will remember where they were as adults. For weeks afterwards, I’d have kids come up to me at recess and want to talk about it, several parents told me their children had nightmares. I finally got to the 9/11 museum this summer in NYC. It’s an overwhelming experience to be standing in the spot where all of this happened. The only positive thing about it? The feeling of unity around the entire country for the next several months. So please share your stories.

My brother and I were still in school but it's the day we both vowed to join the military. Now my brother is a SEAL and can retire in less than 5 years and I'm in the Air Force and over half way to a retirement. Time is flying.

 

[UncleMark]

This is objectively false, sir. WMD is synonymous with what used to be called NBC and now is CBRN (they added Radiological).

I was speaking of the common vernacular, not any kind of official designation. When they talked about WMD to sell the Iraq invasion to the public, they sure as hell implied nuclear:

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/bush.transcript/

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. We don't know exactly, and that is the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to 10 years away from developing a nuclear weapon; after the war, international inspectors learned that the regime had been much closer. The regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium-enrichment sites.

That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected, revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue. The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahedeen" -- his nuclear holy warriors.

Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past.

Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.

And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder: After 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now?

There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing -- in fact they would be eager -- to use a biological, or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.​

 

[MrBing]

I was speaking of the common vernacular, not any kind of official designation. When they talked about WMD to sell the Iraq invasion to the public, they sure as hell implied nuclear:

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/bush.transcript/

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. We don't know exactly, and that is the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to 10 years away from developing a nuclear weapon; after the war, international inspectors learned that the regime had been much closer. The regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium-enrichment sites.

That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected, revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue. The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahedeen" -- his nuclear holy warriors.

Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past.

Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.

And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder: After 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now?

There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing -- in fact they would be eager -- to use a biological, or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.​

They spent a lot of time on chemical and biological too. Turns out the WMD intel was wrong but it was about chemical, biological and nuclear. Nuclear was the weakest case they had really.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Yes, Minister.

Do you really wanna think there was no larger and strategic reason why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor? Big objectives are pretty normal in Wars. All I’m asking is what might be AQ’s larger and strategic goal when they attacked us. Your suggestion that they followed “ideology” is no answer.