Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr. Mojo

In 2000, dudya campaigned, in part, against nation building. And won. Then 9/11 happened. And he responded by nation building.

I’m no 9/11 truther, but ya gotta wonder if dudya took advantage of 9/11 so he could bust some nation-building, globalist moves.


15 posted on 10/19/2017 8:24:13 PM PDT by Vision Thing (You see the depths of our hearts, and You love us the same...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Vision Thing

I’m no 9/11 truther, but ya gotta wonder if dudya took advantage of 9/11 so he could bust some nation-building, globalist moves.

>><<

Taking out Sadaam was nation building and proved to be a terribly stupid mistake.


41 posted on 10/19/2017 9:06:58 PM PDT by laplata (Liberals/Progressives have diseased minds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Vision Thing
I’m no 9/11 truther, but ya gotta wonder if dudya took advantage of 9/11 so he could bust some nation-building, globalist moves.

I would have said no until recently. I would have said that he believed the intel he was given and thought that to head off an even bigger crisis than 9/11 he really had to act. Wrong or right, he believed he was doing it for the safety of the nation. That's what I would have said. Because I believed that was what motivated him above all else.

Then recently the report on Saudi involvement in 9/11 was declassified and released. It was damning. The Saudis were up to their necks in funding and training the 9/11 terrorists and Bush knew it. He classified it and hid it. Then he protected them. I can no longer believe that his primary motivation was defending the nation because of that. I still don't know quite why he put Saudi Arabia ahead of the USA but he did. And once that became clear, well, the war in Iraq becomes problematic.

You see at the time W was making the case for war, he told us that he had intel that said Saddam had WMDs and that he was prepared to give them to terrorists. But he couldnt show us the intel. I was left to conclude that either he was telling the truth and the issue was urgent or he was lying and was therefore an evil warmongering bastard. I thought he was a good man so I assumed he was telling the truth and based on that judgement I supported him. Fast forward to now. Knowing what I now know about his character, I can no longer assume he was being honest about the need for the war. He has lost the benefit of the doubt. So now if someone said he started that war to engage in some nation building and it had nothing to do with protecting America from terrorism, well, I'd shrug and say "could be."

73 posted on 10/19/2017 10:20:54 PM PDT by pepsi_junkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Vision Thing

>>I’m no 9/11 truther, but ...<<

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

7


75 posted on 10/19/2017 10:22:18 PM PDT by Disestablishmentarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson