Process
Status Items Output None Questions None Claims None Highlights Done See section below
Highlights
id595219885
Bush administration officials, however, didn’t encourage any focus whatsoever on US petro-ally Saudi Arabia, the country from which 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers came. (None were Afghans.)
✏️ I’m having trouble letting go the image of what this statement is creating in me. What is it like, in that alternate universe where the US attacks Saudi because of what happened? What circumstances would have allowed for them to make the calculation, “You know what, this is our chance to take over that oil-rich country and take colonize its natural resources.” 🔗 View Highlight
id595220312
questioned the need to attack Iraq, asking, “What is compelling us to now make a precipitous decision and take precipitous actions?” Rumsfeld replied: “What’s different? What’s different is 3,000 people were killed.”
✏️ Again, more fodder for that alternate universe. Why Iraq and not Saudi? Even if they didn’t attack Saudi to start and went with Afghanistan, it’s easy to build a narrative against Saudi for a couple of years between 2001 and 2003, fomenting a plan of colonization. 🔗 View Highlight
id595220570
Iraq’s vast oil reserves, nationalized and off-limits to Western companies before the invasion, would end up in mega-corporate hands like those of Shell, BP, Chevron, and ExxonMobil.