Specifically, they argue that if 9/11 had been an inside job, the perpetrators would have cast Iraqis as the hijackers, to provide an excuse to invade Iraq.
This argument fails for several reasons:
- Bin Laden, living in Afghanistan, was cast as the mastermind. So that gave the U.S. an excuse to invade Afghanistan (which, as you'll recall, was the first battle in the "war on terror")
- The overwhelming majority of 9/11 skeptics believe that real planes were in fact hijacked, but that the U.S. government knew exactly what they were planning and when they were planning to do it, and that the U.S. air force was intentionally stood down so that the attacks could succeed*. In other words, we're not saying that the rogue elements within the U.S. government which aided and abetted the attacks necessarily chose what country the hijackers were from
- Saudi Arabia has long been on the list of nations that the Neocons plan to attack (and see this). So - for the sake of argument - even if the rogue American military and political operatives who allowed 9/11 to happen had chosen the nationality of the hijackers (a theory which I am not promoting), it might have been to justify a subsequent war against Saudi Arabia
A similar argument made by government apologists is that - if the Neocons were such bad people - they would have just planted WMDs in Iraq. Well, according to leading investigative reporter Larisa Alexandrovna, they may have tried to do just that.
More importantly, the mainstream media was completely in the administration's pocket, as Scott McClellan has made clear. So it was not even necessary to find any WMDs.
The media simply whipped Americans into a state of fear and frenzy, and distracted the public with fake Bin Laden videos or celebrity gossip stories any time the Neocon's lies about Iraq started to be exposed.
* Alternatively, we believe that the planes might have been flown by remote control, or that the hijackers might have been intelligence assets or entrapped.