Eric Bolling Claims Saddam Hussein "Financed" 9/11 Attacks

William Kristol, Robert Kagan, John R. Bolton and Donald Rumsfeld were part of a group that formed the PNAC in 1997. Chaney was also tied to this group, as he brought them into Bush 43's War cabinet.

FYI: this group petitioned Clinton in the 90s to make regime change in Iraq an official part of US Policy.

This meant that the US would use every opportunity to overthrow Hussein.

The reason given was quite rational: the importance of the Persian Gulf region based on its considerable energy resources. These resources are not only vital to the American economy but the global economy, of which America is the primary benefactor and defender.

Regime change in Iraq was infinitely more important than defeating "terrorism", which, like the Soviet Threat two decades prior, was merely a context for intervention. Stories about evil-empires and evil-doers are mostly for public consumption (to make war palatable to the public). This doesn't meant there are no terrorists; rather, it means that our greatest fear is not 15 guys with box-cutters but rather a breakdown of the global economy based on instability in key regions. [Don't try to explain this to "Talk Radio Republicans". They get all their information from media sources which do not discuss geopolitics. These T.R.Republicans literally believed Washington's narrative for the Cold War and War on Terrorism verbatim. Turns out, they trust Government more than almost anybody. As them about Mossadegh, the Shaw or say Pinochet and they will give you a blank stare. This kind of illiteracy is dangerous because these people vote.]

Anyway, here is the policy paper that Bush 43 acted upon when he got the opportunity. The fact that most rightwing voters have not read the primary policy paper of their party's foreign policy is scary.

Click me.

This policy paper was written by the people who ran Bush 43's Defense apparatus.

What has always amazed me about Republicans is how little they know about our foreign policy. The USA doesn't merely fight evil-doers, nor are they worried about being attacked. They primary worry is not being able to control necessary markets and resources.
 
Last edited:
Thank you. It appears from this that there was no link between Iraq and 9/11, so we knew going in that there was no link.

So no proof one way or the other. However, my son had been deployed to Iraq 3 times, and he saw abandoned terrorist training camps....that hadn't been abandoned for too many years. Many believe Saddam allowed them, so he most likely supported them too. He may not have been "directly" involved with 9/11, but he helped the terrorists to get ready for it.

No doubt, but he was not behind the attacks.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top