The true cynics are the neocons who used 9-11 as a pretext to get us into a war, even though the secular Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. BTW, how’s that pro-Iran fundamentalist regime in Baghdad working out for you?
The true idiots are those who believe that Saddam was not working to destroy America. If given the lattitude he would have received under Barack Hussein Obama, he would have succeeded.
You sir, are a dangerous idiot.
I don’t know what to think - or who to trust, any longer. Somehow, all these conflicting views of reality seem like a cyber-repeat of the tower of Babel.
I do trust God, Your will be done.
And I wonder if he will destroy the internet, which I love, because it is like living a great library, but it could so easily become Satan’s playground, you know?
Long overdue truther, druggie, Ron Paul nut job ZOT!
I don’t know what to think - or who to trust, any longer. Somehow, all these conflicting views of reality seem like a cyber-repeat of the tower of Babel.
I do trust you, God, and Your will be done.
And I wonder if God will destroy the internet, which I love, because it is like living in a great library on my desk, but it could so easily become Satan’s playground, you know?
Saying that Ron Paul’s position on 9-11 Trutherism is despicable is not the same thing as supporting any - let alone all - of our Middle East policies.
And I am saying that Paul’s truther stance is despicable. That is all I am saying.
You are a nut and a liar. Although ABC has since pulled the video, it may still exist at this link.
1999 VIDEO: ABC News Report Linking Saddam Hussein And Osama Bin Laden
To be added or removed from the Viking Kitty/ZOT Ping List, FReepmail Darkwing104 or 50mm.
They weren’t trying to get us into a war for the sake of having a nice war. We needed a presence in the ME and Iraq was/is the ideal location vis a vis Iran. It started to go downhill when Bush & Co. decided to do the liberal thing and Win Hearts And Minds and do some Nation building.
Put the bong down. In the real world, when the younger President Bush took office, the war we were fighting in Iraq was already the second-longest running shooting war the United States had ever been in. President Clinton bombed Iraq day-in, day-out, for his entire term in office. He was losing, but he did fire a lot of missiles, and drop a lot of bombs (and dropped a lot of concrete blocks).
President Clinton’s battles in Iraq were extensively reported in the press. Depending on what newspaper we’re talking about, you might have seen two or three articles a week, for eight years solid, about where we were bombing them, and where they had fired at our planes (they never hit one, but they kept trying). If you want to do a little memory salvage, I think that the missile salvo President Clinton fired when he was impeached got the most publicity, and would therefore be the easiest to look up.
The claims that the war in Iraq, which President Bush inherited from President Clinton, was President Bush’s “War of Choice”; that after ten years of solid combat, the ground invasion was “Premptive War”; and that the war in Iraq was a distraction from the later war in Afghanistan, are as obvious as lies ever get. If you fell for any of them, you should take it as a warning. You can be sure that the same liars have fooled you about other things too.
Bump to reply to later. After I calm down and don’t go off on the zombies who’re celebrating the loss of a good man here.
Capt. Kirk got the zot? HAPPY DANCE!!!
You should read Douglas Feith's book, War and Decision. It's the book historians will study to understand the Bush administration's reasoning on Iraq after 9-11. Feith was Rumsfeld's undersecretary and considered to be near the center of the "neocon" cabal by Truther types and leftists. The book includes lots of internal memos by Rumsfeld himself where he boils his arguments down to a few bullet points (one of the interesting things is that you see what a master of concision and ordered thinking Rummy was -- his memos rarely went over a few hundred words, even the really important ones). What is obvious is that the administration didn't use 9-11 as a pretext to go to war, and certainly didn't rely on the argument that Saddam was responsible for 9-11.
Instead, the reasons for war were primarily 1) a concern that Saddam would supply WMDs to radical Islamic al Queda types who would be willing to deploy them against the US homeland, and 2) a concern that a second attack involving WMDs would necessitate internal security measures that would seriously infringe individual liberties in order to prevent further attacks. The administration felt that aggressively taking the war abroad while implementing sensible security measures at home would minimize the risk to liberties at home.
The true cynics are the neocons who used 9-11 as a pretext to get us into a war, even though the secular Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.
You might just be a Truther.
